<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Frutiger;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:AGaramondPro;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Exactly. The proton and neutron are called nucleons simply because they are found in the nucleus. They have much in common.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>But my point, and opinion, is that there is energy with spin ½ in the electron (and this allows charge) but there is energy with spin 1 in the photon, and this causes an oscillating field. Trying to fit a spinning photon inside the electron which has spin of its own is not likely the correct solution in my opinion. The topology of the energy has changed to make the electron. Attempting to preserve photon spin properties within this electron topology does not seem to be required by the information regarding the properties of the electron.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So in my opinion it is simply wrong to conclude that an electron is a confined photon.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>If we change our definition of a photon then we can force fit anything, but that does not feel like the correct way to accomplish the task. I don’t think it is good to call a spin ½ object a photon at all. But that is because my notion of a photon precludes it from possessing spin ½ or charge for that matter.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>So if in nature, the electron is its own unique configuration of confined energy, and then if we confine ourselves to thinking that the energy configuration within the electron has to be in the form of a circulating photon then it is unlikely we will be able to solve the problems. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>By considering the electron to be a confined photon we made some progress for a while, but then we found that resolving the spin of the relativistic electron accurately, and understanding the contraction with relativistic velocity, and several other issues stood in the way of further progress. So now if we rethink our approach and discard the confined photon idea, I think we can made further progress.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>By using such an approach I have been able to make some significant headway on several issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>I wanted to share the idea that the energy in the electron is no longer a photon so that you and others could consider the possibilities and maybe the group could achieve more, in individual work and our collective work.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, March 11, 2017 9:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hello Chip (and all),<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> A proton and a neutron are different but both are called a “nucleon" because they have so much in common (compose an atomic nucleus, composed of 3 quarks, display strong force, have spin 1/2 etc) even though they have differences (charged versus uncharged, different mass, composed of a different combination of 3 quarks etc). Maybe we need a term corresponding to “nucleon" for photon-like or light-speed objects that obey E=hf , p=h/lambda and c-f/lambda and have inertial mass E/c^2 even though they have different spin, charge, and rest mass. Suggestions? Let’s not let semantics get in the way of physics. The word “luxon” is already used by some (see <a href="http://www.tardyon.de/mass.htm">http://www.tardyon.de/mass.htm</a>) for a light speed particle having inertial mass but no rest mass. So “luxon” in its current meaning cannot be applied to a circling spin-1/2 charged photon proposed to compose a resting electron since an electron (and therefore the circling spin-1/2 charged photon proposed to compose it) has rest mass. Alex referred to the “mass without mass” problem. See Scientific American article by Gordon Kane “The Mysteries of Mass” at <a href="http://particle-theory.physics.lsa.umich.edu/kane/MysteriesOfMass.pdf">http://particle-theory.physics.lsa.umich.edu/kane/MysteriesOfMass.pdf</a> , “Mass without Mass II: The Medium is the Mass-age” by nobelist Frank Wilczek” at <a href="http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/MassII.pdf">http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/MassII.pdf</a><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'> </span>and “Teaching E=mc^2: Mass without Mass” by Art Hobson at <a href="http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.tpt.pdf">http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.tpt.pdf</a> from which the following is excerpted:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><b><span style='font-family:"Frutiger",serif;color:#262323'>Mass Without Mass</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;background:white'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#262323'>John Wheeler coined the phrase “mass without mass” to indicate the possibility of removing any mention of mass from the fundamentals of physics.</span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#262323;position:relative;top:-4.0pt;mso-text-raise:4.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#262323'>The idea is to account for the fundamental particle masses entirely in terms of fields. Early in the 20th century, Hendrik A. Lorentz</span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#262323;position:relative;top:-4.0pt;mso-text-raise:4.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#262323'>and others pursued the dream </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#272525'>of explaining the electron’s mass entirely in terms of its electromagnetic field, but Lorentz’s classical theory was superseded by quantum physics. <i>Today, we still do not know what gives the electron its mass (</i></span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#272525'>italics</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"AGaramondPro",serif;color:#272525'> added-RG<i>)</i>, but we have nearly achieved Lorentz’s dream in a more dramatic context: The masses of protons and neutrons (“nucleons”), which constitute nearly the entire mass of ordinary matter, appear to arise almost entirely from the “color” fields of their constituent quarks.</span><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Times",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'>Richard<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 11, 2017, at 4:59 AM, Chip Akins <<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Andrew<br><br>Yes. The electron's properties require the energy in the electron behave differently than it would if it were a confined photon. These differences, in spin, charge, and energy density, among others, are pronounced. A photon as we know it cannot exist in the volume of the electron.<br><br>Of course I can solve a PDE. But in order to do that I have to understand the problem. So far I do not understand the problem presented in the paper you sent. There is not enough definition of terms in that paper for my level of comprehension of the math. So I cannot understand how to code the problem to reach a solution.<br>Until we can find a way to help me understand the details of the problem better I do not know a way to solve it.<br><br>Chip<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY<br>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2017 4:18 AM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br><br>Hi Chip, <br><br>Indeed the photon is no longer a photon it is differently configured.<br><br>Also have you made any progress on the PDE problem. I think you are entirely capable of solving this complex problem.<br><br>Andrew<br><br><br>========================================<br>Message Received: Mar 10 2017, 12:53 PM<br>From: "Chip Akins" <br>To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <br>Cc: <br>Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br><br>Hi Richard and Alex<br><br>There is a problem inherent when viewing the energy in the electron and considering it to be a captured photon with spin of its own.<br><br>The circularly confined spin of the photon would force the electron to be a charge-less particle. The field direction of the energy of a photon oscillates (or spins) <br>making the free photon have a net neutral charge. The photon possesses an oscillating field.<br><br>The field direction in the electron remains pointing inward. The spin of the energy of the photon has changed to be the spin of the electron. This energy is no <br>longer a photon, but is now an electron with charge. The static charge field of the electron is a result of the new mode of spin.<br><br>So I am of the opinion that there is no photon confined in the electron. Simply the energy of a photon has been converted to an electron. This completely <br>different spin mode has changed the energy from being a photon. This energy is no longer a photon but is now an electron due to the completely different spin <br>mode and the properties caused by that new spin mode.<br><br>Therefore trying to add the spin of a photon within the electron spin may be a futile endeavor.<br><br>Hoping this helps.<br><br>Chip<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier<br>Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:49 PM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <br>Subject: Re: [General] HA: HA: On photon momentum<br><br>Hello Alex,<br><br>This is very exciting news about your early efforts to develop a helically circulating photon-like-object model of a relativistic electron, and your using the <br>relativistic energy-momentum equation applied to the total momentum P of the helically-circulating photon-like object. It’s not surprising that this approach faced <br>difficulties for you then since it still does today. But times have changed. I think the derivation of an electron's inertial mass from the photon-model’s circulating <br>internal momentum may be helpful in gaining more acceptance of this approach. It will also be helpful to understand more about the possible nature of the <br>circulating photon-like object itself, i.e. is it a spin-1/2 charged photon or something else.<br><br>It would be good for us to figure out how the helical trajectory's radius depends on the electron model’s speed , i.e. how R depends on gamma. The answer <br>depends on whether the helically-circulating photon continues to make exactly two helical turns per photon wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) along the <br>photon-like object's helical trajectory in a relativistic electron, just as in a resting electron model the photon-like object makes two circular loops for each Compton <br>wavelength h/mc (in which case R is found to decrease as 1/gamma^2 for the relativistic electron model) , or whether there can be more and more wavelengths <br>lambda = h/(gamma mc) along each complete helical turn as the electron moves faster and faster (as in Grahame’s electron model), in which case R can even <br>remain constant as the electron’s gamma increases. I assume in my work that the wavelength of the helically circulating photon-like object is derived from the <br>relativistic energy relation that sets the circulating photon-like object’s energy E=hf equal the the relativistic electron’s total energy E=gamma mc^2 . This gives hf <br>= gamma mc^2 (de Broglie used this energy relation for a relativistic electron in deriving the de Broglie wavelength for a relativistic electron). This equation leads <br>to hc/lambda = gamma mc^2 . When this equation is solved for lambda we get lambda = h/(gamma mc) for the wavelength of the helically-circulating photon-like <br>object forming the relativistic electron model. The relativistic de Broglie wavelength L-deBroglie = h/(gamma mv) is easily derived from the helically-circulating <br>photon-like-object’s wavelength lambda = h/(gamma mc) in the relativistic electron model. <br><br>Richard<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:14 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. wrote:<br><br>Dear Richard and all,<br><br><br><br>Yes, as you asked ... the bag model has momentum Eo/c = mc like other photon-like objects composing double-loop-photon-like-object electron models with <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>resting energy Eo and inertial mass Eo/c^2 ...<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>However, concerning "... Eo/c^2 = 0.511 MeV?..", it seems nobody can get mass of electron theoretically. It is my goal, but so far no!<br><br>The electron bag model ...gains relativistic velocities, where the linear momentum of an electron is p=gamma mv and the electron's total energy is E=gamma <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>mc^2... and .. follows the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 . In fact I started from just the same model and ... the helically <br>circulating photon’s total momentum P ... with... Pythagorean momentum equation.. in 1969, but after some attempts to contact with famous Russian physicists <br>Ogievetsky and Ginzburg, I understood, that nobody of them will speak with me on this level. However, as I remember, the talk at the seminar by Ya. P. Terletsky <br>was accepted positively. Very soon I applied E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 to cylindrical solutions of the Dirac equations, and it was delivered at the<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>conference on particle physics in Uzhgorod 1971 and published in proceedinds of this conference (Kiev,1971).<br><br>The circling photon was interpreted as object with ``mass without mass'' or Wheeler's "geon".<br><br>About the Kerr solution I first heard at the seminar by D. Ivanenko and quickly understood that it is just the same metrics, which can keep the photon in circular <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>motion. This was first delivered in Yerevan (Armenia) conference on gravity 1972, and than published in JETP 1974, Microgeon with spin. This is the first official <br>paper which I quote up to now. Bag-like interpretation of this model appeared about two years ago, and this is really fruitful analogue, since bags are associated <br>with Dirac equations and with string-like structures.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>During this way, I found also the corresponding important works by W. Israel (1968) and by Lopez (1984).<br><br><br><br>The question about the radius of the circular trajectory of the photon-like object circling at the bag model's outer rim as the bag model gains relativistic velocity <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>is retained still open! There are still arguments in the both versions of its change.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Concerning toroidal topology, it is changed to two-sheeted (!!!) Kerr geometry, which is approximately toroidal near the Kerr singular ring, but remained <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>essentially two sheeted, which allows to put smoothly second loop along the ring. This second loop gets additional turn of polarization, and its field brings the <br>same charge as the first loop -- second half-period of the photon does not compensate first one.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I think, all that should be defined in the exact solution, which I try to find now. In particular, some important information can go from the exact Dirac equation on <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>the Kerr-Newman background with bag-like cavity.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Another important information should follow from exact solutions for accelerated Kerr geometry. Such solutions were not found up to now. So, there are much <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>work and little time.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Alex<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>________________________________<br>От: Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br>Отправлено: 9 марта 2017 г. 8:32<br>Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>Тема: Re: [General] HA: On photon momentum<br><br>Hello Alex (and all),<br><br>Thank you again for your reply to my questions about electron models. I hope others will join in this discussion.<br><br>If I compare your gravity-based bag model (described in your 2 mentioned articles) of the electron with other electron models composed of a double-looping <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>circling light-like or photon-like object, I think that your bag model is one of the best electron models so far that I have seen. It has the main properties of a resting <br>electron, including the g=2 magnetic moment, as well as a gravitational justification for its circulating internal motion, and may be able to reconcile gravitational <br>theory and quantum theory.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>The bag model appears to be a model for a resting electron, one that has zero electron speed. All double-looping models of a resting electron are somewhat <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>similar in their essential features — the double-looping light-like or photon-like object has a light frequency given by hf = mc^2 and a zitterbewegung circling <br>frequency f-zitt given by h f-zitt = 2mc^2 , with the associated Compton wavelength h/mc and a radius hbar/2mc for the circling photon-like object . Is this also the <br>case for the circling light-like or photon-like object in your bag model? Would you say that the circulating light-like or photon-like object in the bag model has <br>momentum Eo/c = mc like other photon-like objects composing double-loop-photon-like-object electron models with resting energy Eo and inertial mass Eo/c^2 = <br>0.511 MeV?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>One way the various double-looping-photon-like-object electron models differ is in what happens to the electron model as the electron gains relativistic <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>velocities, where the linear momentum of an electron is p=gamma mv and the electron's total energy is E=gamma mc^2. Can you confirm that your relativistically <br>moving bag model of the electron follows the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 for a relativistic electron? I expect that it does.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I showed for the relativistic electron model described in my 2015 SPIE article “Electrons are spin 1/2 charged photon’s generating the de Broglie wavelength" <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>at <br><a href="http://www.superluminalquantum.org/SPIE_article_Electrons_are_spin_one_half_charged_photons_generating_the_de_broglie_wavelength.pdf">www.superluminalquantum.org/SPIE_article_Electrons_are_spin_one_half_charged_photons_generating_the_de_broglie_wavelength.pdf</a> that the relativistic energy-momentum <br>equation for the relativistic electron model becomes P^2 = p^2 + (mc)^2 where P is the helically circulating spin-1/2 charged photon’s total momentum P=gamma <br>mc , p is the electron model’s relativistic linear momentum p=gamma mv, which is the longitudinal component of the helically circulating spin 1/2 charged photon’s <br>total momentum P , and mc is the transverse component of the helically circulating photon’s total momentum P. Will this Pythagorean momentum equation apply <br>to your relativistically-moving bag model also?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>What happens to the radius of the circular trajectory of the photon-like object circling at the bag model's outer rim as the bag model gains relativistic velocity? <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Does the circular trajectory of the photon-like object become a helical trajectory? If so, does the helical trajectory's radius R remain a constant R=hbar/2mc at all <br>electron velocities including highly relativistic velocities as in Grahame’s electron model? Does the helical trajectory's radius decrease as 1/gamma as in Vivian’s <br>electron model? Does the helical trajectory’s radius decrease as R=1/gamma^2 as in my electron model as shown in my article? Or does the photon-like object's <br>trajectory do something else as in the Williamson and van der Mark electron model in “Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?” at <br><a href="http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf">http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/electron.pdf</a> ?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Do you associate a spin with the circling light-like or photon-like object in your bag model? Is it spin 1 or spin 1/2 or some other spin?<br><br>Finally, how does the electron’s charge originate in the bag model?<br><br>I’m asking these questions so that we all can get a better qualitative and quantitative idea of how your relativistic bag model of the electron compares with <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>other relativistic double-loop electron models? If you have not considered some of these questions in detail yet, could you still briefly answer those questions that <br>you can now answer, and also say how you would predict or expect the bag model to behave approximately at relativistic velocities?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Thanks very much Alex,<br>all the best,<br>Richard<br><br><br>On Mar 1, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Burinskii A.Ya. > wrote:<br><br>Hi Richard,<br><br><br><br>Some of the questions you state now were discussed in another my paper,<br><br>arXiv:1410.2888 [pdf, ps, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>other] Title: Kerr-Newman electron as spinning soliton.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Also, origin of charge is clear for me, but was not published, it is related with Mobius-like<br><br>behavior of the photon polarization.<br><br>You are right, there are still a lot of open questions.<br><br>The principal question which turned me to Kerr geometry was: what keeps the photon at circular orbit?<br><br>In my last paper arXiv:1701.01025 I show that the widespread opinion that gravity is weak is an illusion.<br><br>Spin of particle is also gravitating, and its huge value with respect to mass (about 22 orders in dimensionless units} makes gravity strong enough to create <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>waveguide and keep photon in circular motion.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Therefore, the Kerr singular ring plays the role of a waveguide, and here appear relations to string models.<br><br>In the same time, two-sheeted structure of Kerr geometry gives rise to Dirac two-sheeted solutions.<br><br>Therefore, I think that emergence of the Dirac equation is also a central question for which I work now.<br><br>There are evidences that gravity states strong restrictions to Dirac solutions.<br><br><br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Alex<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>________________________________<br>От: Richard Gauthier [<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>]<br>Отправлено: 2 марта 2017 г. 7:10<br>Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>Тема: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hello Alex,<br>Someone in a discussion group at <a href="http://academia.edu">academia.edu</a> about my new article mentioned an article that footnoted your <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>2008 article “Gravitation and Cosmology” containing your idea of a Kerr-style electron structure. You (and others) are welcome to join this discussion at <br><a href="https://www.academia.edu/s/b660a8076f/derivation-of-the-inertial-mass-m-e-o-c-2-of-an-electron-composed-of-a-circling-spin-charged-photon?source=link">https://www.academia.edu/s/b660a8076f/derivation-of-the-inertial-mass-m-e-o-c-2-of-an-electron-composed-of-a-circling-spin-charged-photon?source=link</a> . The <br>article referenced is “Derivation of fundamental constants and SI units via black-hole electron and sqrt of Planck momentum” by Malcolm J. MacLeod at <br><a href="https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf">https://philpapers.org/archive/MACAMU.pdf</a> .<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Richard<br><br>On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:49 PM, Richard Gauthier > wrote:<br><br>Hello Chip, John D, Alex, John W, Vivian, Grahame, Chandra, John M, Andrew W, Andrew M, Albrecht, and all,<br><br>A circling photon-like object must have inertial mass Eo/c^2 where Eo=0.511MeV, if it is modeling a resting electron. Are we all in agreement on this? Still, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>some fundamental questions remain:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>1) What is the origin of the circling photon-like object’s inertial mass?<br>2) What is the nature of that circling photon-like object?<br>3) Does the circling photon-like object have spin 1 or spin 1/2 or something else?<br>4) Is it the circling photon-like object charged or uncharged or something else?<br>5) Where does the circling photon-like object’s electric charge reside or what gives rise to the charge? — is the charge localized or distributed or something <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>else?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>6) Does the circling photon-like object change its spin as viewed from different reference frames (stationary versus moving electron)?<br>7) Are there spatial models for the circling photon-like object?<br>8) What is the radius of the photon-like object?<br>9) Do the various models distinguish between the trajectory of the circling photon-like object and the radius of the photon-like object?<br>10) How does the trajectory of the photon-like object change with particle speed? Is the trajectory a helix or something else?<br>11) How does the radius of the photon-like object moving along its trajectory change with electron speed?<br>12) Is trajectory even meaningful for a circling photon-like object?<br>13) How does a photon-like object composing an electron relate to electron-positron pair production and annihilation?<br><br>It would be great to get clear statements of our various views on these and any unresolved related questions, and hopefully make more progress towards <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>resolving some of these questions. You don’t need to have an electron model to give your inputs about these questions.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>I’ve put together an article on the derivation of inertial mass for circling photon-like particles: “Derivation of the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 for an electron <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>composed of a circling spin-1/2 charged photon", at <br><a href="http://www.superluminalquantum.org/Gauthier_Derivation_of_the_Inertial_Mass_28_Feb_2017.pdf">www.superluminalquantum.org/Gauthier_Derivation_of_the_Inertial_Mass_28_Feb_2017.pdf</a> The pdf file is also <br>attached below. The article emphasizes the inertial mass of a resting electron, but refers to work on the relativistic electron also.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>I would appreciate hearing any comments or criticisms, as well suggested answers to any of the above burning questions.<br>Richard<br><br><br>On Feb 28, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Chip Akins > wrote:<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>1. Regarding: “It lacks causative explanation”<br>Where do we get causative explanation for Planck’s constant?<br>All I have done with this is break Planck’s constant into two components, a displacement amplitude constant and a spin or oscillation constant, both of which <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>are borne out by observation (the mass and energy of the electron).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>2. Regarding: “IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try not to invent anything new.”<br>A differential displacement of space is by far the simplest explanation for electric charge, gravity, and the mass of the electron. I am afraid that if we don’t <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>consider this we will be preventing ourselves from understanding the most fundamental forces of nature.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>3. Regarding: “Just divide the electron Compton wavelength by 4π:” (for the radius of the electron).<br><br>The Compton wavelength of the electron is:<br>λ=cҠ§/E= Eo Uo/K= h c/E<br>This constant (which is a component of Planck’s constant) tells us why the electron is the size it is.<br>It tells us the electron at rest can only be one size.<br><br>But my friend, I am afraid that a wave diffracting itself is not the answer for fermion confinement. The math just does not work. However an equal and opposite <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>force from space which opposes displacement does work perfectly.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:02 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi Chip.<br><br>I don’t like the rest mass formation constant I’m afraid. It lacks causative explanation, and the mass-energy of an electron varies with gravitational potential, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>because the properties of space vary in a gravitational field. Where the “constant” called c varies too. Also, I think it’s important to think about the electron at rest <br>to avoid getting bogged down with length-contraction issues. This I like though:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>The formation of mass requires a different topology of propagating energy than the topology of light. We know this because of the spin characteristics of <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not have measured, or at least <br>recognized.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I think in terms of elastic properties, wherein permittivity is “how easy it is to bend space” and permeability is “how well space bounces back”. I like this too:<br><br>The equation E=hf does not address wave amplitude. The way we measure amplitude in material media is by wave displacement. If photons are real, if light is <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>comprised of tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys the rule E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be the same<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I know of no waves which don’t have an amplitude.<br><br>One way for us to think about this is as follows: A node of space is a Planck scale entity which is comprised of the two components of space. These two <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>components are normalized (at their lowest energy state) when collocated, and are displaced from one another by incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in <br>a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential displacement with a force which is the <br>product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected nodes remains constant.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>IMHO it’s best to keep it simple and try not to invent anything new.<br><br>Physics has not previously clearly identified the amplitude aspect of photons. We have focused on the obvious energy and frequencyaspects. We have <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must have a hard quantization as well, since <br>amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the equation E=hf to work as it does. That fixed amplitude plays an important role.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>You bet. It’s the quantum of quantum mechanics.<br><br>Specifically, the electron has the rest mass it displays in nature simply because energy moving in space has one specific amplitude, but its frequency varies <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>with energy. This set of circumstances, including a fixed amplitude, makes it so that there is only one rest energy level where all aspects of nature support a three <br>dimensional confinement of that energy to become a charged spin ½ ħ fermion.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I don’t think it can be anything too complicated. Space waves, when a 511 keV wave moves through itself it adopts a double-loop configuration it ends up in a <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>closed path.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>So let’s distribute Planck’s quantization of action into displacement amplitude (Ҡ) …. <br><br>Just divide the electron Compton wavelength by 4π:<br><br><br><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 28 February 2017 13:40<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D.<br><br>Here is a little bit for you.<br><br>Let me know what you think.<br><br>Mass Formation Constant <br>One way we could get closer to understanding the rest mass of the electron is to define an elementary rest mass formation constant. Then find cause for that <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>constant.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>If we determine the mass formation constant Ҡ = 4.58576946280331E-06 we can state the following:<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Then restated for a relativistically moving electron:<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>The formation of mass requires a different topology of propagating energy than the topology of light. We know this because of the spin characteristics of <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>fermions. The mass formation constant we have proposed would be caused by properties of space, some of which we may not have measured, or at least <br>recognized.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>We have called this constant Ҡ a mass formation constant, which it is, but the story goes farther than that. We know that the energy in a wave determines its <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>frequency. But what of amplitude? The equation E=hf does not address wave amplitude. The way we measure amplitude in material media is by wave <br>displacement. If photons are real, if light is comprised of tiny indivisible packets, and each packet obeys the rule E=hf, then the amplitude of each packet must be <br>the same, for it is only the frequency which changes with energy. So what is this wave amplitude? Amplitude is the total differential displacement of all nodes of <br>space affected by the wave.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>One way for us to think about this is as follows: A node of space is a Planck scale entity which is comprised of the two components of space. These two <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>components are normalized (at their lowest energy state) when collocated, and are displaced from one another by incident energy. Energy affects these nodes in <br>a quantized manner, involving more or fewer nodes depending on the amount of energy. Space opposes this differential displacement with a force which is the <br>product of the number of nodes affected, so that the total displacement (the sum of the displacements) of all affected nodes remains constant.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Physics has not previously clearly identified the amplitude aspect of photons. We have focused on the obvious energy and frequencyaspects. We have <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>recognized that photons have a sort of soft quantization in that frequency is dependent on energy. However photons must have a hard quantization as well, since <br>amplitude must remain the same for all photons for the equation E=hf to work as it does.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>That fixed amplitude plays an important role. Specifically, the electron has the rest mass it displays in nature simply because energy moving in space has one <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>specific amplitude, but its frequency varies with energy. This set of circumstances, including a fixed amplitude, makes it so that there is only one rest energy level <br>where all aspects of nature support a three dimensional confinement of that energy to become a charged spin ½ ħ fermion.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>So let’s distribute Planck’s quantization of action into displacement amplitude (Ҡ) and an oscillation or spin component §.<br><br><br><br><br>So that now we have an equation for the photon:<br><br><br><br>So we can solve for frequency:<br><br><br><br>Now our energy term is more complete because it contains both amplitude (A) and frequency (f) terms as well as the action quantization (§).<br><br>And then we have a description of the electron as:<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:30 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>How far does the transverse wave displace space? 3.86 x 10 -13 m . That’s why the double-loop electron has the mass that it has. Distance r is λ/4π, so the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>diameter is λ/2π.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>The sine function is what it is and transverse waves work the way that they do, and so does gamma gamma pair production. Your spin ½ electron and your <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>positron at rest have a wavelength of 2.426 x 10 -12 m. As for how physical media reacts to transverse waves, don’t forget that the photon has spin. There’s a <br>rotation of sorts, we have experimental proof of the spin of the photon. But the photon itself isn’t <br>actually spinning. It has no magnetic dipole moment. As to how best to draw it, I’m not sure. But I quite like this:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br>I too am fairly certain that light is made of transverse displacements which propagate linearly, and that matter is made of transverse displacement which <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>circulates. But I’m not certain whether there’s two transverse displacements involved, or whether the fundamental photon is the circularly polarized photon, and <br>two of these make up the plane-polarized photon. I do however feel confident that displacement is behind the confinement. In the double-loop configuration, light <br>displaces its own path into a closed path. It’s that simple. See what Clifford said in his space theory of matter:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>(1) That small portions of space are in fact of a nature analogous to little hills on a surface which is on the average flat; namely, that the ordinary laws of <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>geometry are not valid in them.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>(2) That this property of being curved or distorted is continually being passed on from one portion of space to another after the manner of a wave.<br><br>(3) That this variation of the curvature of space is what really happens in that phenomenon which we call the motion of matter, whether ponderable or etherial.<br><br>(4) That in the physical world nothing else takes place but this variation, subject (possibly) to the law of continuity.<br><br>Nothing else takes place. I’m also confident that light is quantized in a manner that complies with energy, and that the spin ½ electron is where this self-same <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>energy moves round and round. As for “confined”, I think back to that seismic wave. It isn’t particularly confined. Nor is the electron’s field. It has no outer edge. I <br>see it as a chiral 3D screw displacement of space not totally unlike the “twist” of the gravitomagnetic field. I’d say the crucial point is that when you consider your <br>sinusoidal field variation in terms of potential, you can wrap it up into a spin ½ double loop. The minima and maxima line up to yield an all-round standing field:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br>↓<br><br><br><br>Only now do you have the thing called charge. Hence there is no “charge wave” travelling with the photon. Charge is not fundamental. The photon is more <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>fundamental than the field it is said to mediate. Note that you can make a left-hand Mobius and a right-handed Mobius. If you mentally inflate the Mobius to a <br>torus, then inflate it further to a spindle-sphere torus, you can maybe get a sense of the chiral “screw” displacement that is a negative or positive electromagnetic <br>field, and why electrons and positrons move the way that they do: because that all-round standing-wave standing field is dynamical, and they don’t call ‘em <br>spinors for nothing.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><br>Do we all know about Hans Ohanian’s paper what is spin? Spin is real. And did I tell you what what <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Feynman said:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>“Suppose we take the example of a point charge sitting near the center of a bar magnet, as shown in Fig. 27–6. Everything is at rest, so the energy is not <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>changing with time. Also, and are quite static. But the Poynting vector says that there is a flow of energy, because there is an that is not zero. If you look at the <br>energy flow, you find that it just circulates around and around. There isn’t any change in the energy anywhere - everything which flows into one volume flows out <br>again. It is like incompressible water flowing around. So there is a circulation of energy in this so-called static condition. How absurd it gets!”<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Yes, how absurd it gets. Here we are in 2017, and people think the electron is a point-particle, and that spin is magic. FFS, I am living in the dark ages, an <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>idiocracy. As for the speed of charge and gravity being very much faster than light, I’m not sure they are. Charge is nothing special, nor is gravity. Yes, <br>longitudinal waves tend to travel faster than transverse waves. But not that much faster.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Yes, it is compelling isn’t it?<br><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 14 February 2017 18:06<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>Yes. Size is not really the issue. It is the transverse displacement distance which is of significance. How far does the transverse wave displace space? That <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>distance (size) is the “radius” or “sinusoidal displacement extent” of the transverse wave. A transverse sinusoidal wave has a specific wavelength, and since it <br>has that specific wavelength and the function is sinusoidal, there is a displacement extent which must be the wavelength divided by 2 pi. That is what the sine <br>function is, and that is how transverse waves work. This holds for transverse waves in any media.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>However the similarities between space and physical media cease at a point. We know this because no physical media reacts to transverse waves the same <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>way space does.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Of course there are different types of seismic waves, longitudinal, and transverse. But we are fairly certain that matter is made of transverse displacement <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>which circulates, and light is made of transverse displacements which propagate linearly.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>We know (or strongly suspect) that matter is made of confined energy. E=mc^2 This energy is apparently confined in 3D and moving at the speed of light. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Therefore it also seems reasonable to explore the confinement of energy in 2 dimensions (which would move forward at c). This seems to be what light is. There <br>is an implied requirement for this sort of confinement from Planck’s rule E=hf. While it is possible that light is not quantized, and it is just the reaction of light with <br>matter which makes light appear quantized, it is also entirely possible that light itself is quantized in a manner which complies with the 2 dimensional confinement <br>of energy. Then the difference between a spin 1 photon and a spin ½ electron simply lies in the dimensions of confinement.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>In order to sort out why the rest mass of the electron is the specific value it is in nature we will need to explore all the possibilities and implications, with some <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>detail.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>The fields of a wave extend far beyond the active confined region. If we use the example of the electron we can understand that electric charge is the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>longitudinal differential displacement of space with an origin at the center of the electron. Likewise with the “photon”. The longitudinal displacement of space, <br>surrounding the photon, and perpendicular to its direction of travel takes the form of a “charge wave” which travels with the photon. The “charge” oscillates as the <br>photon waves. But in the electron this form of external differential displacement (charge) is localized, permanent, and in only one direction outward from the <br>center of the electron.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>So photons and electrons are non-local by their nature, simply because the fields they create go off to infinity.<br><br>But these fields do not propagate from the particles at c.<br><br>The “velocity” of charge (and of gravity) are likely very much faster than light, and they are likely both caused by this permanent differential displacement of <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>space, propagating longitudinally from particles.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>When the Italians performed the experiment to measure the velocity of charge propagation, the results we quite remarkable, and so much faster than light that <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>the velocity seemed almost infinite.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>While the conventional wisdom has argued that relativistically moving bodies have a different (relativistic) shape to their fields, which they claim explains the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>direction of force pointing toward the actual instead of retarded position of a particle, this argument no longer holds up when direction is not the metric. When we <br>measure the velocity of charge it becomes apparent that this relativistic treatment of fields is simply a work around to try to keep SR intact. It becomes apparent <br>that charge actually moves much faster than light, just as we would expect a longitudinal displacement to propagate faster than a transverse one.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I have most of the math which illustrates that this is what charge is, but will have to collect it from spreadsheets and MATLAB, and compile it into a single <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>document to share.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Gravity is caused by the same differential displacement of space which causes charge. Waves diffract when they encounter this differential displacement for <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>the same reasons that particles react to this differential displacement.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>I am working on the math to prove this. So far it is quite compelling.<br><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 5:28 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>That sounds pretty good Chip. But I’d say take care with things like “size” and try to think of the photon as something like a seismic wave in space.<br><br>A seismic wave in the Earth might displace the ground by 1m, but 10 km away from the epicentre you can still feel the ground shake. If that seismic wave <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>propagates for 100 km from point A to B along a flat plain, it isn’t just the houses sitting on top of the AB line that shake. In this respect the seismic wave takes <br>many paths.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I have to go, talk more tomorrow.<br><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 13 February 2017 17:52<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>Been thinking about the constant amplitude of photons which would cause E=hf.<br><br>If we explore the possibility that energy is the differential displacement of myriad tiny nodes of space, which creates a set of parallel dipoles…<br><br>We can then view total displacement of these tiny dipoles as the amplitude of the wave.<br><br>A photon, as we have modeled it, has a wavelength:<br><br>The photon’s frequency is:<br><br>And a radius (or sinusoidal extent) of:<br><br>If we consider the differential displacement of space as occurring in a myriad tiny nodes of space, then the number of nodes involved increases with energy. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>As the number of adjacent nodes displaced increases, the opposing force of space (the force opposing displacement) increases based on the density of <br>displaced nodes in that region of space. So the confining force limits total displacement. The sum of the displacement of all nodes active in a wave in space <br>therefore becomes invariant for photons. The displacement density varies with energy, as does the number of nodes, but the total displacement (sum of the <br>displacement of all tiny nodes involved) remains constant.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>In this way space imposes a size on the photon which varies with the inverse of energy.<br>Therefore we have E=hf.<br>The total displacement Ƹ of any localized energy propagating in space, meaning the distance representing the sum of displacement of all affected individual <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>nodes, is therefore:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Or if only analyzing half the differential displacement of the wave:<br><br><br>This would then be the amplitude of the wave, and this value is invariant with energy.<br>This approach implies that the displacement energy itself is much more localized than the photon it causes. Theorizing that the energy of a photon exists in a <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>transverse plane perpendicular to the direction of travel. The transverse extent of this active (circulating or undulating) energy distribution (displacement <br>distribution) is:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>(Space would then be a very special type of medium. One where Hooke’s Law does not work as it does for material media. It would seem then that a “Hooke’s <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Law” for space would be sort of an inverse function.)<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting this scenario. Albrecht and I have been discussing the concept that Planck Charge is responsible for confinement. <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>Plank charge is quantized in precisely the manner which this scenario suggests. Using the force of Planck Charge as the force which opposes displacement we <br>can show that:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Interestingly this confinement would be exactly what is required for the frequency to vary in the manner E=hf, f=E/h. This solution yields a sinusoidal function <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>which coincides with Compton’s wavelength.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Wonder if this can be how it works?<br><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:49 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>John:<br><br>That sounds interesting. I have to go shortly, but for now:<br><br>There does seem to be some kind of limit to what you can do when you make space wave. I found this interesting when I first saw it some years ago:<br><br><a href="http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html">http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html</a><br><br>It’s the quantization of electromagnetic change, not charge. Space waves, but only so much.<br><br>Regards<br>John D<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Macken<br>Sent: 31 January 2017 21:27<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip, John D, Chandra – Interaction of Waves<br><br>I take the position that all waves propagating in a finite medium interact. The easiest to prove example of this is with sound waves propagating in a gas. When <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>sound waves propagate in a gas, the compression part of a sound wave causes an increase in temperature and the expansion part of the sound wave produces <br>a decrease in temperature. Since the speed of sound is temperature dependent, this means that a sound wave produces a modulation of the speed of sound in <br>the propagating medium. Another frequency sound wave propagation in the same volume of gas and the same direction will encounter this modulation in the <br>speed of sound and produce a second order effect which is new sound waves at the sum and difference frequency. I recall that there is experimental proof of the <br>interaction of sound waves, but I have not attempted to find a reference.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Water waves have also been mentioned as examples of the non-interaction of waves. If the depth of the water is infinite and the speed of sound in water is <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>vastly larger than the speed of the water wave, then there appears to be no interaction between water waves. However, imagine an experiment where the water <br>in in a shallow flat bottom pond. If the amplitude of the wave is on the order of half the depth of the pond, then nonlinearities become noticeable and there would <br>be detectable interaction between waves. In the limit, there is a definable maximum amplitude of the water wave. This occurs when the wave minimum equals <br>the depth of the pond. Similarly, when the sound wave produces a vacuum at its minimum, this is the limiting condition.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Another clear example with a great deal of proof is the interaction of two beams of laser light interacting in a nonlinear medium. There is the optical Kerr effect <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>which changes the index of refraction of the propagation medium. All transparent mediums including glass and even air exhibit the optical Kerr effect. Here is a <br>quote from Wikipedia.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>"The optical Kerr effect, or AC Kerr effect is the case in which the electric field is due to the light itself. This causes a variation in index of refraction which is <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>proportional to the local irradiance of the light.[3] This refractive <br>index variation is responsible for the nonlinear optical effects of self-focusing, self-phase modulation and modulational <br>instability, and is the basis for Kerr-lens modelocking. <br>This effect only becomes significant with very intense beams such as those from lasers."<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>There is a long list of nonlinear effects using laser beams in nonlinear crystals including sum frequency generation, difference frequency generation and <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>second harmonic generation. These examples of nonlinear effects in a transparent optical material illustrate an important point. The optical medium has a finite <br>ability to transmit light. The optical material is made of atoms which are bonded together by finite electrostatic forces. When the intensity of one or more laser <br>beams reaches a level that the electrostatic bonding force is noticeably approached, then we detect a nonlinear optical effect. However, even at undetectable <br>levels the nonlinearity is still present because of the finite properties of the transparent medium set a boundary condition. For example, even sunlight passing <br>through a glass window produces a slight change in the index of refraction of the window.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>These examples set the stage for the big question: Does the vacuum of spacetime have a limiting boundary condition which produces nonlinear effects on light <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>as this limit is approached? We know that Planck force (c4/G = 1.2 x 1044 N) is a maximum possible force. I once referenced a paper which showed that all of <br>general relativity could be derived by assuming this boundary condition. The speed of light is another boundary condition. In fact, Planck length, Planck <br>frequency, Planck energy etc. are also boundary conditions when properly applied. Therefore, I am setting the stage to make the claim that light waves interact <br>when the intensity reaches the level that the boundary conditions (nonlinear conditions) of spacetime become detectable.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Chandra has written extensively on the non-interaction of waves. This is a very useful concept to understand optical effects at ordinary intensities. I have not <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>said anything challenging this before because he is correct for all experiments which can currently be conducted with available technology. However, I maintain <br>that he is not correct at the extreme limits of high intensity light which produce nonlinear effects in the vacuum. This statement is analogous to saying that <br>Newton's gravitational equation is very useful for calculating ordinary gravitational interactions. However, there is a nonlinearity as the limiting properties of <br>spacetime are approached. General relativity is required when the nonlinear effects become important.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>To prove these points, it is necessary to have a model of an electrically charged particle, electric field and a photon. I have developed a model of these, but I <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>want to tell a story about an experience I had during this process. I asked the question: What is the smallest volume that I can physically confine a photon? A <br>circularly polarized photon can be confined in a cylindrical waveguide that is slightly more than ½ wavelength in diameter with flat reflecting end separated by ½ <br>wavelength. I define this as “maximum confinement”. There are several more steps but I concluded that a single photon would produce a Planck length polarized <br>distortion of spacetime that modulates the transverse distance across the waveguide diameter by plus and minus Planck length (designated Lp) at the frequency <br>of the photon. Multiple coherent photons, designated as “n” photons, would increase this modulation by the square root of n (by). Then I was <br>struck by a serious doubt because if this model of a photon was correct, it was predicting that there was a maximum number of photons which could be put into <br>this maximum confinement waveguide. The limiting condition was when the modulating distance equaled ½ wavelength which is the diameter of the waveguide. <br>This would be 100% modulation of the properties of spacetime at the frequency of the photon. A different frequency would achieve this limit at a different <br>intensity, but in all cased the model was predicting a limit. This seemed impossible, but I quickly calculated the condition that would produce this limit. To my <br>surprise, it exactly equaled the energy density of photons that would produce a black hole with the diameter of the waveguide. What I thought would be a proof <br>that I was wrong turned out to be a proof supporting the model. An experiment with the intensity required to achieve a detectable modulation of distance is <br>beyond our current technology, but it is not necessary to do an experiment. A simple calculation proves that the predicted limiting condition forma a black hole. If <br>it was possible to arbitrarily increase the power of a focused laser beam, then there would be a limit where the modulation of spacetime at the focus reached the <br>predicted 100% modulation condition. No more light would be transmitted through this volume because a black hole would form. No further transmission would <br>be possible.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>The same model that achieved this success predicts that at a very high intensity approaching the formation of a black hole, the nonlinear properties of <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>spacetime become obvious and there would be detectable “interaction of waves”.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>All of this is documented in technical papers and my book. For further reading I suggest first reading the paper I posted on January 21 titled “Gravitational <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>waves indicate vacuum energy exists”. This paper has recently been submitted to a technical journal. It sets the stage defining the properties of spacetime. The <br>paper titled “Spacetime based foundation of quantum mechanics and general relativity” gives the quantifiable model of particles and photons. It also describes in <br>more detail the photon thought experiment just described. Pages 13 to 16 of this paper describe the quantifiable model of electrical charge, photons and the <br>maximum confinement thought experiment. This paper is available at:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264311427_Spacetime_Based_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics_and_General_Relativity</a><br><br>John Macken<br><br><br>From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:35 AM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>Thank you. Now I understand what you are saying, and the mechanics behind it. In your example, as the large ocean waves crest, the density is greater in the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>water, and less in the valleys, net zero, but still it causes temporary changes in direction of the small intersecting waves because any change in density causes <br>the small wave to change directions (standard refraction).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I can model (simulate) this effect. I will do that to see what the conditions would have to be to get a closed circular wave.<br><br>Chip<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 12:21 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>Yes, you’re missing the simplicity of it. I didn’t actually say light refracts light. I said it causes a path change. This does occur in water. Think of an oceanic swell <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>wave. I gazed at them a few years back when I was on a cruise. An oceanic swell wave is maybe 200m wide with a wavelength of maybe 100m, and maybe 3m <br>high. Now imagine an ordinary little 1m wave intersecting it. The little wave goes up and over the big wave. Whilst it does so it changes path. Its path started <br>straight and ended up straight, but whilst the little wave was going over the big wave, its path was curved. If this didn’t happen, and if waves just went straight <br>through one another, you wouldn’t get “monster” waves. You can imagine a similar scenario with seismic waves and sound wave. If the ground is displaced to the <br>North by 1 metre, this alters the path of a sound wave through the ground.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 31 January 2017 13:15<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>You are saying that light refracts light. Is there any experimental evidence?<br><br>I have not found any evidence that waves of any sort behave in this manner, including water waves.<br><br>Do you have any supporting information?<br><br>The refraction of water waves in the ocean, as I understand it, is generally due to the depth of the water changing near the shore, or due to an object, not due <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>to other waves.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>When we use a ripple tank, we see interference, but not a change in direction of the waves when they interact.<br><br>Am I missing something here?<br><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 1:43 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>When an ocean wave moves over another ocean wave, the curvature of the “up and over” path depends on the amplitude and wavelength of the other wave. If <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>however all ocean waves were 1m high, the curvature of the path waves would depend only on the wavelength. Given what I said about h, when an <br>electromagnetic wave moves through itself, the curvature of its path depends on the wavelength. So for the Dirac spinor, there’s only one wavelength where that <br>curved path is a closed path:<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br>Regards<br>John D<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 30 January 2017 14:31<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>The amplitude of the wave not being the size of the wave makes sense in this context.<br><br>But if the electron’s mass is somehow dependent on the amplitude always being the same, then how does that relate to…<br>If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do.<br><br>Wavelength is size.<br><br>So how do we equate amplitude and wavelength to make this electron with the size and mass it has in nature?<br>How do we show that only one wavelength will work?<br><br>Chip<br><br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:16 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>My thoughts? The amplitude of a wave isn’t the size of the wave.<br><br>Think of a seismic wave with an amplitude of 1 metre. It moves from West to East. As it does, your house shakes 1 metre to the North, then 1 metre to the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>South. At the same time a house 10km North shakes 10cm to the North, then 10cm to the South. A house 100 km North shakes 1cm to the North then 1cm to the <br>South. Et cetera.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 22:58<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>Yes Planck’s constant applies to all wavelengths. However experimental evidence and experience tell us that the transverse physical size of a wave gets <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>smaller as the longitudinal wavelength gets smaller with energy.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>An opening which will allow a high frequency wave to pass through, will also completely block a significantly lower wavelength from passing.<br><br>So it seems that all wavelengths do not have the same physical transverse extents.<br>(My thoughts are that the wave extents are the wavelength / 2 pi. This seems to match the evidence and works well in the RF spectrum for system design <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>considerations. Openings in Faraday shielding, unshielded trace lengths etc. need to be kept within a prescribed limit (fraction of a wavelength) based on the <br>expected interfering frequency and the attenuation required.)<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Your thoughts?<br><br>Chip<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 2:37 PM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>Planck’s constant h is common to all photons regardless of wavelength. Look at those pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Irrespective of wavelength, the <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>depicted amplitude is always the same.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>If you’re going to “wrap up” a wave into a spin ½ spinor to make a stable standing-wave standing-field particle, only one wavelength will do.<br><br>As for which characteristic of space, I’m not sure. Perhaps it’s something like an elastic limit.<br><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 14:36<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John D<br><br>I am not understanding your idea. Can you explain how you feel that h contributes to the specific rest mass of the electron and not some other mass value? <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>To which characteristic of space are you referring?<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Chip<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of John Duffield<br>Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 8:25 AM<br>To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' >; <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>'Hodge John' ><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Chip:<br><br>I think the electron has the mass that it has because h is what it is, because space has a particular characteristic:<br><br><br><br>Some people liken it to a crystal.<br><br>Regards<br>JohnD<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Chip Akins<br>Sent: 29 January 2017 13:45<br>To: 'Hodge John' >; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <br><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>Hi John Hodge<br><br>Thank you. I think you have made a good point here. For diffraction to work the way it does it seems the “photon” must have momentum.<br><br>Hi Chandra.<br><br>It seems to me that the simplest explanation of all we observe is to suspect that momentum is inherent in the motion of energy in space, and the cause for <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>inertia. This approach allows us to derive E=mc^2 from the circulating energy in a particle. This would keep the particle stationary until it is acted on by an <br>outside force. It would then also explain the property of inertia. It helps us to understand why light wants to travel a straight line unless deflected (diffracted).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Like John D I feel space waves as energy propagates. However unlike a water wave, which is a simple displacement of particles of mass, a wave in space is a <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>differential displacement of a transverse wave, with one part moving one way and the other part moving in the opposite direction. This differential displacement is <br>what can give us part of the Chandra CTF type behavior of space. It yields things like electric charge naturally. It also causes things like the type of confinement <br>in elementary fermions which Albrecht talks about.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>But in all this discussion I think we, and physics in general, have missed something important. Space cannot be a linear medium. Our equations generally <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>describe space in “linear” relationships, like E=hf. But this ignores the resonant conditions which cause the specific masses of stable particles. It seems that <br>resonances must be included in our physics before we really understand why the electron at rest is the specific mass and energy level which it possesses. I also <br>think that once we identify and quantify the non-linear resonances of space, and their causes, we will be able to see better how all the pieces fit.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Hi Andrew<br><br>I have been able to detect EM radiation which is slower than 1Hz, so I am having a bit of trouble accepting the integer approach to the solution of quantization <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>of waves. But I understand your example and appreciate its simplicity, and the smallest value of n could be whatever nature has chosen.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Chip<br><br>From: General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] On Behalf Of Hodge John<br>Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:10 PM<br>To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ><br>Subject: Re: [General] On photon momentum<br><br>I do. And it explains diffraction.<br>Hodge<br><br><br>On Saturday, January 28, 2017 7:12 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell > wrote:<br><br><br>Dear All,<br>[Notably Chandra & Chip],<br><br>I'm having a bit of a problem over this question of: 'How does a photon carry momentum'? (or similar words.)<br>It seems to me that in order to even beginning to address this question, one needs a clear definition of 'momentum' that's applicable to the momentum carried <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>by a photon.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>I may be looking in the wrong places (if so please advise), but the only definitions of momentum that I can find either refer to 'mass' or refer to some other <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>phenomenon which in turn refers to momentum - i.e. circular references.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>If I'm going to figure, or be persuaded, how a photon carries momentum I first need to know what momentum IS in respect of a photon (yes, I know it's E/c, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>that's a measure it's not a definition).<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal>Of course I'm aware of the paper "Light is heavy", but I don't feel it's appropriate just to extract from that some sort of mass-equivalence of a photon. If we do, <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>we get the result that 'm'=E/c^2, so 'm'c = E/c - gives the right result, but appears to be some sort of convoluted self-confirmation (i.e. a circular argument <br>dressed up in fancy clothes). It certainly doesn't DEFINE a photon's momentum, just evaluates it.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Does anyone have a convincing definition of momentum that's applicable to a photon? One that can be used as a firm basis for theorising?<br>(I'd be glad if colleagues didn't use this as an excuse to yet again present their own personal theory/model - I'm looking for a definition that would be agreed by <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>all, or at least most, physicists.)<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Thanks in anticipation,<br>Grahame<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><a href="mailto:jchodge@frontier.com">jchodge@frontier.com</a><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal>richgauthier@gmail.com<br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier@gmail.com<br><br>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier@gmail.com<br><br>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins@gmail.com<br><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at member@aworsley.fsnet.co.uk<br><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins@gmail.com<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier@gmail.com<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>