<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div></div><div><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Grahame,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">Thank you for your response. I respectfully suggest that you have misquoted me. My statements were and still are that "<i style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13.333333015441895px;">explanations should be based upon physical principles supported by mathematics</i>”<font size="3"> and “<i>experiment and/or observation are the final arbiters</i>" of a theory. </font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">I am a little perplexed at what you see as a fundamental difference between your “causation” and my “physical principle”. IMHO they are the same thing. Some physical principle is needed to cause an event to happen. Mathematics can be used to calculate the magnitude of the physical principle that causes the event. </font><span style="font-size: medium;">If you believe physical principles are fundamentally different from causation, I will consider your viewpoint.</span></div></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">Regarding the production of particle/anti-particle pairs. I realize that Wikipedia may not be the world’s best authority on the matter. However from their website “Pair-Production” I quote "</font><i><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Pair production often refers specifically to a </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon" title="Photon" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">photon</a> </i><i style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">creating an electron-positron pair near a nucleus</i><font color="#222222" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14px;">.” </span></font><span style="font-size: medium;">From the website "</span><font size="3">Positron Electron Pair Production - </font><font color="#222222" face="sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 14px;">Nuclear Power", I quote "</span></font><i><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(116, 116, 116); font-family: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">The presence of an electric field of a heavy atom such as lead or uranium</strong></i><strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(116, 116, 116); font-family: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;"><i> is essential in order to satisfy conservation of momentum and energy</i>”. </strong><span style="font-size: medium;">Similar sentiments expressed in other websites indicate a nucleus is needed for the conservation of momentum during electron positron pair production. </span>Based upon those and similar website comments, as well as my recollections of what I was taught during my University nuclear physics course, I am prepared to accept that a nucleus can be involved in electron positron pair production. </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">You may call those references subjective if you wish. I prefer to think of them as referenced experimental observations. I will acknowledge that my use of the words “crumbled" or “bent” were perhaps too short to express the observation that a <span style="font-size: medium;">high energy photon enters the high electric field density associated with a large nucleus, </span><font size="3">transfers its momentum to the nucleus, alters its properties, including splitting in two, and produces an electron positron pair. </font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-size: medium;">That they can also be produced in gamma-gamma colliders does not mean their production from single gamma to a nucleus cannot occur. </span></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">One of the reason for my comments was the number of communications where contributors make statements without the support of a physical principle or mathematics. The discussions go back and forth about the validity of what appear to be ideas forwarded without a physical principle or mathematics to support them. If that is what this discussion group wants, iso be it. It also seems to me that when some, such as John W or Martin vd M, offer corrective comments, many of which are well founded in observation and often standard model physics, less than favorable comments are made based upon what appears to be subjective criticism. I was hoping that some could see the benefit of comments based upon physical principles and supported by mathematics. At least Chip has indicated he will soon forward his ideas on half photons and their implications based upon his calculations. I hope others would do the same.</font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">In the meantime as the word photon is used extensively in this “nature of light and particles” discussion group, I have forwarded my physical description of photons along with mathematical representations. I am quite happy to receive communications concerning other contributor’s interpretation of a photon. But please, give a physical description and some supporting mathematics to enable objective discussion to occur. Some standard model physicists hide behind the uncertainty principle and say we cannot determine the structure of photons (some also include electrons). They call them point particles to which they attach labels. I hope this is not</font><span style="font-size: medium;"> acceptable to this discussion group.</span></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">Sincerely,</font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3"><br></font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><font size="3">Vivian Robinson</font></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 17 October 2017 at 5:51:13 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell (<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" bgcolor="#ffffff"><div></div><div>
<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>
</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>
_______________________________________________
<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></div></body></html>