<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>BODY {
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></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>Viv,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I have seen many times your assertion
that theories should be supported by (a) experiment and (b) mathematics.
Whilst I don't disagree, I'd respectfully suggest that there's a third factor
without which those first two can still lead to false conclusions. That
third factor is <EM>causation</EM>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I am strongly of the view that we
live in a causal universe; if we don't then we may as well all pack up our
theories and retire, since any theory becomes worthless in a non-causal
universe. One classic example of where causation has been left out of
every proposal is Relativity Theory: we're asked to accept that the wholly
relative universe is just how it is, however counter-intuitive, without any
explanation or proposal as to causation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>For myself, I'm fully content that
it's possible to derive ALL findings of SR and GR from a non-relative framework
- i.e. to explain causation for all of those findings. This derivation
actually includes the inevitable consequence that readings from instruments made
from physical matter will produce results that wholly accord with the notion
that the universe IS intrinsically relative. In other words I
can formulate a theory of a wholly relative universe, produce a
mathematically self-consistent theory, and demonstrate the validity of that
theory through experiment - EVEN IF my initial premise is completely
fallacious. This is precisely what's been done, pretty much continuously,
for the past 100+ years.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>If, however, I consider causation:
"WHY do I get results that appear to fly in the face of common sense?" - then
it's absolutely possible to produce a self-consistent, mathematically robust
theory that provides a full explanation as to causation AND AT THE SAME TIME
leads to experimental results exactly as found. For me a theory that
includes firm mathematics, full consistent experimental validation AND causation
beats hands-down a theory that includes both of your preferred factors but
neglects to consider causation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I do feel, also, that sometimes you
choose what does and doesn't 'count' to suit your own theories. Notably
below you take issue with (deride?) the theories of others - yet you're quite
prepared to propose that a photon would 'crumple' on colliding with
matter! Sorry, but for me that doesn't wash - at least not without a lot
more rationale than you've provided. A photon isn't a Ford or a
Lamborghini, why on earth is it 'not unrealistic' to expect that it would behave
in like manner?? I suggest, Vivian, that if another in the group had
proposed this notion and it didn't fit with your chosen view, then it's more
than likely that you'd have had little truck with it and been quite vocal in
your dismissal of it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>You also say that a photon "requires
an interaction with matter" to form an electron. Where did this come
from? Is it a pure Vivian-ism? It certainly doesn't accord with
well-established experimental evidence (or accepted theory) to date.
As I stated previously, Landau & Lifshitz established that the essential
precursor to e+/e- pair production is generation of two then-colliding photons
(not matter, notice); the Breit-Wheeler Process demands no matter to be
involved; the 1997 SLAC pair-production demonstration generated e+/e- pairs from
collision of photons - no matter there (apart from containing vessels - and I've
not heard anyone suggest that those containing vessels took any significant part
in the process, the evidence as presented indicates that it was all down to
those colliding photons).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Viv, you talk about "subjective
opinion" and regularly offer the pre-eminence of experiment and math. Both
math and experiment support the notion of two colliding photons generating an
e+/e- pair (absolutely supporting the view that half of each photon has gone
into formation of of each particle) - whereas your notion of a photon
'crumpling' on hitting matter to produce such a pair has absolutely no such
provenance to my knowledge, mathematical or experimental. Would you
consider me unjustified in suggesting that your 'crumpled/bent' photon forming
such a particle-antiparticle pair is 100% subjective opinion?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I'm not really convinced, Viv, that
you apply the same level of critical appraisal to your own views as you do -
often quite harshly - to the views of others.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I hope you find these observations
helpful - they're intended to redress the balance in what I see as a
somewhat less than even-handed perspective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=viv@universephysics.com href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Viv
Robinson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=chipakins@gmail.com
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A> ; <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> Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:31
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] Interference of
Photons</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>Hi Chip, Grahame and All,</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>I have tried to suggest that explanations should be based
upon physical principles supported by mathematics. To that end my last
correspondence gave a physical description of different types of photons in
terms of their electric and magnetic fields. Their mathematical form of the
wave function Psi was also presented. Both depended upon the physical
properties of free space, the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.
To the best of my knowledge no other representation of a photon has been
presented to this group. Many keep mentioning photons without describing what
they mean. The side benefit of that is participants can attribute any property
they do or do not desire to a photon. </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>Chip, what is meant by "<I>half a photon</I>"? How can
“<I>half a photon</I>” exist without the other half? Regarding your comment
"<I>The whole photon does not possess the properties it takes to be confined
to become and electron</I>” John W (and Martin v d M may) suggest that it is
possible, John W has also used some mathematics sin support of that proposal..
When a full circularly polarized photon makes two revolutions per wavelength
the electric polarities and magnetic fields reinforce each other. This does
not occur with any other combination of rotations per wavelength. That model
explains many known electron properties and makes many predictions that can be
tested experimentally. IMHO that gives a way that full photons can give rise
to particles in general and electrons in particular. </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont>Grahame, I agree that a "<FONT
color=#000080 size=3 face="Arial, sans-serif"><I>a linear photon could not by
itself form an electron</I></FONT><FONT color=#000080
face="Arial, sans-serif">”</FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=3
face="Arial, sans-serif">. It requires an interaction with matter. Without
going into great detail, it is not unrealistic to expect that, at such
interaction or collision the photon could “crumple” or bend and split.
Half the photon would be confined to a negative charge, an electron, and
the other half to a positive charge, a positron. Without a definition of
a half photon, I am not sure how that idea differs from particle/anti-particle
formation from a single energetic photon “splitting” into two
confined “half photons”. As mentioned above, a circularly polarized
electromagnetic wave making two revolutions within its wavelength will
reinforce its electric and magnetic properties in a way that no
other combination of rotations per wavelength can.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont><FONT color=#000080 size=3
face="Arial, sans-serif"><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont>It would help your case if you
were to give a description of half a photon and how "<SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">two
half-photons (of requisite energy) can form an electron</I><FONT color=#000080
face="Arial, sans-serif">”<FONT size=3>. Without those sorts
of </FONT></FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=3
face="Arial, sans-serif">explanations, everything is subjective
opinion. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>Cheers </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>Vivian R</DIV><BR>
<DIV id=bloop_sign_1508188418014103808 class=bloop_sign></DIV><BR>
<P class=airmail_on>On 16 October 2017 at 5:55:28 AM, Chip Akins (<A
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</A>) wrote:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=clean_bq type="cite"><SPAN>
<DIV lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue" bgcolor="white">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><!--[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]-->
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi
Grahame<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">Yes. Perhaps semantics is
getting in the way regarding a photon within an
electron.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">It seems that the correct half
of what makes a photon would possess a single polarity of electric
charge. That is a portion of my objection to using the term photon for
this form of energy. A photon does not possess a single polarity of
charge. But a photon does not have the capacity to be fully confined
in three dimensions and exhibit ½ hbar spin either.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">So to me, so much has to be
different from the properties of a photon, that calling this propagating
energy within the electron a photon is not really an accurate or clear
description. But if one want to imagine that a photon can have charge,
and a photon can be fully confined (not travel in a straight line at c), and
can possess ½ hbar spin, then they could still call this thing a
photon. Just doesn’t seem correct to me.<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-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Dr Grahame Blackwell<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, October 16,
2017 6:37 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[General] Interference of Photons<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Chip & all,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Having
written of an electron as being a cyclic-photon construct, I have to agree
with Chip that there are compelling reasons why a linear photon could not by
itself form an electron. My concept of a 'cyclic photon' is that of an
electromagnetic waveform like a linear photon, but constrained by its own
electromagnetic field interactions to travel in a cyclic path rather than
linearly. In my parlance this doesn't make it 'not a photon' - it
depends on whether one's definition of a photon is necessarily something
that travels in a straight line or whether one regards it simply as a packet
of electromagnetic energy in the form of a
self-propagating time-varying electromagnetic field effect: the latter
is my understanding of the term.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">So
whilst I don't totally agree with Chip's view that there isn't a photon
circulating in (or rather AS) an electron, this is due to our differing
views on what constitutes a photon - it appears that we're agreed on what
constitutes an electron. I'm also fully in agreement with Chip (and
all experimental evidence that I know of) that two half-photons (of
requisite energy) can form an electron.</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">----- Original
Message ----- <O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4" class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=chipakins@gmail.com href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</A>
<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">To:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">'Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion'</A> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Sent:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Monday, October
16, 2017 12:20 PM<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Subject:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> Re: [General]
Interference of Photons<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">Hi John M and
Vivian<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">First, <B>Vivian</B>. I am
and exception apparently, for I do not believe there is a photon
circulating inside an electron. To me the evidence indicates that a whole
photon cannot become an electron. The whole photon does not possess the
properties it takes to be confined to become and electron. Two half
photons could become an electron.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="COLOR: black">John M</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="COLOR: black">. One thing I wanted to mention is related to
your comment…<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">“My model obtains the exact
force between two particles at any separation if they had Planck
charge rather than charge <I>e.</I>”<O:P></O:P></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black">This is because the model of
space as a two component tension medium suggested, obtains the exact force
between two particles at any separation, and this is precisely the
force of the elementary charge.<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 I will take a look at the
gravitational force between two electrons using this model and get back to
you.<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></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________
<BR>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
and Particles General Discussion List at viv@universephysics.com <BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
<BR>Click here to unsubscribe <BR></a>
<BR></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>