<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello John W., Martin and all,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here’s another comment from Andr<span class="" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">é.</font></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""> Richard</font></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">I read with interest the email you forwarded of Viv's answer to Grahame.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">You mention the fact that John Williamson is strong on the use of Clifford algebras and algebras in general. I suspect that he may possibly find interest in having a look a the trispatial geometry from the Clifford algebra perspective, since it is fundamentally a strictly orthogonal (3x3)+1 entirely orthogonal local space geometry.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">The second part of this paper, also peer-reviewed, puts in perspective this trispatial geometry with respect to other attempts at multidimensionality to explain the remaining issues in fundamental physics:</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf" title="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; color: rgb(66, 139, 202); text-decoration: none; font-size: 14px;" class="">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf</a><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">I understand the concept of Clifford algebras, but I am at the absolute layman level in this regard, and would really be looking forward to any feedback from a practitioner as to the possible usefulness of what, if any, useful perspective application of Clifford algebra to the trispatial geometry could bring.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">I must say that I fully agree with Viv to the need for any development at the fundamental level to be supported by consistent mathematics, that I personally see as requiring the solid foundation of the set of equations on electromagnetism that was developed from experimental data by Ampere, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Biot and Savart, that all are interconnected and thus are converging in a manner that can only confirm their conformity with physical reality.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">Best Regards</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px;" class=""><span style="font-size: 14px;" class="">André</span></font></span></div><div class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><br class=""></span></font></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 19, 2017, at 9:17 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Hello John W, Viviian, Chip, Grahame and all,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> I invited Andr<span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">é Michaud to contribute his thoughts on the two particle photon hypothesis and related topics such as e-p pair creation from a photon. With his permission I’m appending part of our exchange. I’ve invited him to join our group and hope he will accept. He has a highly developed approach to de Broglie's two half-photons hypothesis for a photon, which he calls his trispatial geometry model. Please copy to </font></span>Andr<span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">é any replies to his comments or to this thread on a composite photon. </font></span>Andr<span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">é's</font></span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""> peer-reviewed and published article “On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis"</font></span><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""> is free to download at </font></span><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373" class="">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373</a> . </font><span style="color: rgb(75, 75, 75); font-family: Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class="">Thanks.</span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""> Richard</font></span></div><div class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></font></span></div><div class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class="">Our exchange follows:</span></font></div><div class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><br class=""></span></font></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">Andr<span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class="">é: </font></span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">I just read your last email to the group.
Note that during the McDonald et al. 1997 experiment that converted photons
energy to electron positron pairs, there was no massive particle involved to
absorb or communicate any momentum. It thus appears that the mere proximal
presence of two photons beams, one of which was made of photons exceeding the
1.022 MeV threshold seemed sufficient to trigger destabilization, of what I
assume would have been the 1.022 MeV or more photons.</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><br class="">
<!--[endif]--><span style="background:#F8F8F8" class=""><o:p class=""></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">Also, the presumption that momentum is
communicated during grazing of 1.022 MeV photons by massive particles stems
from the logic of QED. It must be taken in consideration that QED, which is in
harmony at the general level with Maxwell's equations, is unable, just like
electromagnetism in its current state, to account for the self-sustaining
mutual induction of electric and magnetic fields for localized elementary
particles such as electrons and photons.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">I put this in perspective because during
a conversation with an old experimentalist about 15 years ago, he spoke of experiments
confirming that no momentum was transferred between the decoupling single
photon and a massive particles, because they could verify that the exact
complement of incoming photons of 1.022 MeV or more corresponded to the exact
sum of the energy making up the rest masses of both particles plus their
momentum energy.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">At the time, I did not ask for formal
references to these experiments, thinking that this was generally known.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">It may thus be that the notion that
momentum is exchanged simply stems from theory.</span></span></p>
<span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75); background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248); background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;" class="">You (Richard) write: "It sounds like the
experiment your experimentalist friend told you about also didn't directly
measure the recoil of the nucleus, but relied on the principles (laws) of
conservation of energy and momentum, applied to the incoming photon compared to
the outgoing e-p pair."</span><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">You are exactly right. And that's what
convinced me. Given that they could verify that the sum of the outgoing
energies accounted for the total energy of the incoming photon, then the issue
of recoil or not of the destabilizing massive particle seemed a moot point. All
the more so since that there were no massive particle to absorb any momentum in
the case of the McDonald et al. experiment in 1997, where one photon exceeding
the 1.022 MeV threshold could be destabilized by simply grazing closely another
photon of much lesser energy.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">What I find important here is that the
total energy complement of the incoming photon is completely accounted for.</span><br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">
<span style="background:#F8F8F8" class="">Note in this regard, that all my
conclusions are refocused by the fact that this seamlessly fits in with all
other conversions processes possible in the rest of the 3-spaces model. This
includes the conviction that a single 1.022 MeV or more photon can decouple
into a pair, because this is natural and mechanically possible in the trispatial
geometry, but I have no idea how two separate photons could interact in such a
way that they would convert to a pair of electron-positron. It doesn't seem to
be mechanically possible in the trispatial geometry.</span></span><!--EndFragment-->
</div><div class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><span style="background:#F8F8F8" class=""><br class=""></span></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; color: rgb(75, 75, 75);" class=""><span style="background:#F8F8F8" class=""><br class=""></span></span></div><div class=""><font color="#4b4b4b" face="Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);" class=""><br class=""></span></font></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 17, 2017, at 12:08 PM, John Williamson <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" class="">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); direction: ltr; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;" class="">Hi Chip and Grahame,<br class=""><br class="">Yes, it does take two photons. In fact though they must have the same spin (or helicity. As they are travelling in opposite directions, this then cancels in the spin zero creation of an electron positron pair.<br class=""><br class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span lang="EN-US" class="">YT you Grahame for introducing a dose of reality into the argument and asking for references. You are, as far as I know, correct in what you say below.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class="">If there were two parts to the photon then one would see that as structure in the scattering at energies commensurate with the photon energy. This is not observed. This lack of observation of structure extends even above the electron-positron (and, as far as is known, the muon-antimuon) pair production thresholds, at least if one restricts oneself to spin-zero scattering (spin one has three photons, and hence the complications of interpretation of a three body problem). One needs to access hadronic energy levels before one sees structure corresponding to little hard bits of stuff on some sort of springs (forces between the bits) inside any “elementary” particles. If anyone knows differently, proper references are required.<br class=""><br class="">Likewise, reversing the process, one does not observe two (or more) bits within the electron (or muon), so any models positing this are, by the scientific method, simply not correct. The "two bit" hypothesis is simply contradicted by experiment. Sorry.<br class=""><br class="">Likewise, Wolf's earlier comment is apposite, if there are two (or more) bits,<span class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>they need forces holding them together. If one is going to describe this sort of stuff without just hand-waving you are anyway going to need a theory (with the bits and with the forces between them) that can be subject to test. Theories are things like the Maxwell equations or Newtons laws, with differential equations, Lagrangian theories with contributions to action, A Hamiltonian equation, with contributions to the energy, or tensor equations of space, time and curvature, as in general relativity. This was what was missing in Martin and my original conjecture about the electron nature and why both he and I are investigating possible extensions to theory, I in the set of differential equations posited in 2014 at Marseilles and 2015 at SPIE (and still under development), he in extending the Bateman method in electromagnetism (amongst other things). If we want to get serious we need to move to developing theories testable by experiment, otherwise we could make up and talk about whatever we like.<br class=""><br class="">This is what makes solving the puzzle so interesting: there is a lot that we know about the things we are trying to describe. Any theories we come up must be consistent with known experimental facts if they are to describe reality as it is observed. Self-evidently.<br class=""><br class="">Regards, JGW.</span></div><div style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;" class=""><hr tabindex="-1" class=""><div id="divRpF534496" style="direction: ltr;" class=""><font size="2" face="Tahoma" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] on behalf of Chip Akins [<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">chipakins@gmail.com</a>]<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday, October 11, 2017 12:55 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] Fw: A composite electron?<br class=""></font><br class=""></div><div class=""></div><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;"><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Hi Grahame</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">I think you are may be correct, in that it may take two photons to make an electron positron pair. It is clear that it would take two photons of .511MeV at least.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">But due to the charge and spin considerations, comparing photons to electrons/positrons, it still seems that one “polarity” of each of the photons is used to form one fermion.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">This seems to be the simplest way to explain both spin and charge of the fermions from a causal basis.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Chip</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:49 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[General] Fw: A composite electron?</span></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Hi Chip & All,</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">[repeat as my first send doesn't appear to have arrived - apologies if any duplication]</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Can somebody point me in the direction of experimental evidence of a single photon being split into two parts to form an electron-positron pair? I was under the impression that such pair production takes an opposing pair of photons of requisite energy.</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">It's my understanding that the history of this discovery goes back to Lev Landau's seminal experiments in 1934 (with his student Evgeny Lifshitz) where he identified the fact that particle collider experiments producing such pairs always hinged on release of high-energy photons that then collided to form those pairs - collisions of photons, in my understanding, always involve more than one photon. In December of that year - presumably based on this finding - Breit & Wheeler defined their well-documented process, which again involves collisions between opposing photons.</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">The only practical implementation, to my knowledge, of a process whereby e-/e+ pairs have been produced from photons alone was the SLAC experiment in 1997, where a 'Multiphoton Breit-Wheeler Process' was implemented, successively ramping up the energies of photons in a laser cavity to the point where, after around four collisions, they reached the required energies to form e-/e+ pairs on further collision with bombarding photons.</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Clearly it's possible for a photon to be split - Compton Scattering is a practical illustration in which part of a photon's energy is absorbed by a (pre-existent) material particle to give it momentum and the rest of that photon continues on its way with reduced frequency/energy. However I know of NO situation in which a single photon has been transformed into a particle-antiparticle pair, as is being suggested below.</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">[As a point of detail, I find it hard to envisage how linear momentum, angular momentum and energy could all be conserved by such a happening.]</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Those who are happily discussing it as if it's 'de facto', I'd be really glad of your references for same.</span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">If no such (reliable) references exist, I'd suggest that to proceed on the basis that it IS a reality would be questionable, to say the least.</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">[For avoidance of doubt: Colliding two opposing photons to thus form two particles is most assuredly NOT "splitting a photon", in my book - though it IS re-apportioning the energies & momenta of those two photons to re-cast them as particles.]</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Thanks,</span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: navy;" class="">Grahame</span></div></div><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-color: navy; border-left-width: 1.5pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt; margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">----- Original Message -----</span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria; background-color: rgb(228, 228, 228);" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""> </span><a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" title="chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">Chip Akins</span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""></span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">To:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""> </span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</span></a><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""></span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">Sent:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tuesday, October 10, 2017 12:22 PM</span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class="">Subject:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] A composite electron?</span></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Hi Richard</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Exactly! The mere act of splitting a photon (with the requisite energy) causes each “half photon” to confine itself and the half photons become an electron/positron pair.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Andrew suggested in the SPIE conference we attended, that the electron was half a photon (a rectified photon is what I think he said).</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">This is part of the concept I have been trying to convey. The rest of the concept is that space is composed in a way which makes this possible. A two component tension medium. This scenario creates quantized electric charge, as we observe. Creates mass, as we observe. Creates the spin we observe for photon and electron. Makes more energetic particles smaller particles, as we observe. And agrees with experiment regarding the velocity of electric charge, which is much easier to conduct and less ambiguous than the current LIGO findings.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Regarding LIGO and gravity: Binary pulsars have been studied for some time. Their orbits simply do not deteriorate at the rate they would if gravity propagated at light speed. Many, who firmly believe in the postulate of relativity that nothing can travel faster than c, have attempted to explain this away. But I have found none of these explanations to be plausible (in my opinion). The simplest explanation is the gravity is faster than light.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">That does not mean that it is impossible for two massive bodies to generate a wave which has a phase velocity near or at light speed. That is quite possible, and perhaps even probable.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">But back to the photon and electron. I think you are on the right track with this.</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span style="" class="">Chip</span></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span style="" class=""> </span></p><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); border-top-width: 1pt; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Richard Gauthier<br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Monday, October 09, 2017 11:59 PM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Andrew Meulenberg <</span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">mules333@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">><br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">>; Martin Rivas <</span><a href="mailto:martin.rivas@ehu.es" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">martin.rivas@ehu.es</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">>; David Hestenes <</span><a href="mailto:Hestenes@asu.edu" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Hestenes@asu.edu</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">>; robert hudgins <</span><a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">hudginswr@msn.com</span></a><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [General] A composite electron?</span></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">Hello Andrew and all,</div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""> De Broglie proposed his 2 spin-1/2 particle photon idea (not sure if he also had a model for this) in the early 30’s in his book "La Physique Nouvelle et les Quanta” (available free at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="http://archive.org/" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">archive.org</a>) and in English translation as "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007G309U/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 102, 192); text-decoration: none;" class="">The revolution in physics: A non-mathematical survey of quanta</span></a>”, available at <a href="http://amazon.com/" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">Amazon.com</a>. With the help of Google Translate (slightly edited) I give below what de Broglle wrote on this (p. 277-278 in the French edition):</div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class=""><span lang="EN" style="font-family: inherit; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">From these general remarks, we have concluded that, in order to constitute a theory of the photon, we must first use a relativistic form of wave mechanics comprising elements of symmetry due to polarization and, secondly, introduce something to differentiate the photon from the other particles. The first part of this program is realized immediately by using the theory of the electron of Dirac that we studied previously. We know that Dirac's theory is relativistic and that it contains elements of symmetry with a marked kinship with those of the polarization of light. Nevertheless, it was not sufficient to suppose that the photon is a particle of negligible mass obeying the equations of the Dirac theory, for the model of the photon thus obtained would have, so to speak, only half the symmetry of the real photon; moreover, it would, like the electron, apparently obey Fermi statistics and could not be annihilated in the photoelectric effect. We need something more.</span></pre><pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class=""><span lang="EN" style="font-family: inherit; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">This something more, we tried to introduce on the assumption that the photon is constituted not of a Dirac particle, but of two. It can be realized that these two particles or half-photons must be complementary to each other in the same sense as the positive electron is complementary to the negative electron in Dirac</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">’</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: inherit; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">s hole theory. Such a pair of complementary particles is liable to annihilate itself by contact with matter and yielding all its energy, and this perfectly accounts for the chracteristics of the photoelectric effect. Moreover, the photon then being constituted by two elementary particles with spin h/4pi must obey Bose-Einstein statistics, as required by the accuracy of Planck's law for black-body radiation. Finally, this photon model makes it possible to define an electromagnetic field linked to the probability of annihilation of the photon, a field which obeys Maxwell</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">’</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: inherit; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);" class="">s equations and possesses all the characteristics of the electromagnetic light wave. Although it is still premature to pronounce definitively on the value of this attempt, it is indisputable that it leads to interesting results and that it heavily draws attention to the properties of symmetry of complementary particles whose existence, suggested by the Dirac theory, was verified by the discovery of the positive electron.</span></pre><pre style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Courier New';" class=""> </pre></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">So what I have called in the past a spin-1/2 charged photon I now think should be called a spin-1/2 charged half-photon, since two of them (one positive and one negative) would move in a double helix to form a spin 1 photon which helps generate electromagnetic waves. This renaming should also solve the semantic problem of the name of this superluminal charged spin-1/2 particle , which I would no longer consider to be a variety of photon, since it would take two of them to make a photon. Such a photon model could easily generate an electron-positron pair when near an atomic nucleus that absorbs excess momentum (creating two rest masses) and splits a sufficiently energetic photon into an e-p pair. Comments? </div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div class=""><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">On Oct 2, 2017, at 5:20 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mules333@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;">Dear Folks,</p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">The composite electron model has a history of which I was not aware. From mid-right column of page 4 of (free access):</div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><a href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/</a><b class="">the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics</b>-2090-0902-1000217.php?aid=87682</p><div style="margin-left: 30pt;" class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">Louis de Broglie elaborated a most promising hypothesis to help</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">explain these special characteristics of the photon [7]. Having analyzed</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">them in light of the verifed aspects of the various pertaining theories,</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">he eventually concluded that the only way for an electromagnetic</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">photon to satisfy at the same time Bose-Einstein's statistic and Planck's</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">law, and to perfectly explain the photoelectric e</span><span class="gmail-fontstyle0"><span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math', serif;" class="">ff</span>ect while obeying</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">Maxwell's equations and conforming to the symmetry property of</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">complementary corpuscles in Dirac's Hole Theory, would be for it to</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">be made not of one corpuscle, but of two corpuscles, or half-photons,</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">that would be complementary, like the electron is complementary to</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">the positron in Dirac's Hole Theory [15].</span><br class=""><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">This conclusion mandates the association of charges (possibly</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">unsigned) to each half-photon, and consequently to the photon itself, ...</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""> </p></div><div style="margin-left: 30pt;" class=""><div style="margin-left: 30pt;" class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">7. Michaud A (2016) On De Broglie’s Double-particle Photon Hypothesis. J Phys</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">Math 7: 153.</span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">15. De Broglie L (1937) New physics and quanta, Flammarion, 2</span><span class="gmail-fontstyle0"><span style="font-size: 4pt;" class="">nd<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>1993 new</span><br class=""><span class="gmail-fontstyle0">Preface.</span></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 12pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;">This would imply that, historically, the Nature of Light is even more curious than most of us thought.</p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">Andrew M.</div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1pt; padding: 0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">Hello Martin (and all),</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""> Thank you for this summary of your CC-CM approach to a moving particle such as an electron. My approach to modeling an electron is quite similar to yours, except that in my approach the CC (center of charge) is the position of a light-speed spin-1/2 charged quantum particle that I call a choton. It is in circular motion in a resting electron and moves helically in a moving electron. The linear momentum of the choton in a resting electron is Po=mc=2.73x10^-22 kg m/s = 0.511 MeV/c (and its energy is mc^2= 0.511 MeV) and this momentum mc circles with radius Ro= L-compton/4pi = hbar/2mc = 1.93x10^-13m at the zitterbewegung frequency f-zitt=2mc^2/h. The choton’s average position as the choton circles around is what you call the CM (center of mass). In a resting electron the choton (at the position CC) and the CM are separated by the distance Ro, with the choton circling around its CM at the zitter frequency. Due to its circular motion with its changing momentum direction, the choton appears to be acted on by a centripetal force Fc=dp/dt = w Po = w-zitt Po = 0.424 N , where w-zitt (omega-zitt) = 2 mc^2/hbar = 1.55 x 10^21 rad/sec. The choton’s centripetal acceleration A-cent in this circular motion in a resting electron is A-cent = r w^2 = Ro (w-zitt)^2 = 4.66x10^29 m/s^2. My article “Derivation of the inertial mass m=Eo/c^2 of an electron composed of a circling spin-1/2 charge photon” at <a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research%23papers" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</a> (4<sup class="">th</sup> article) also shows that the above circling choton (spin-1/2 charged photon) has an inertial mass m = Eo/c^2 = 0.511MeV/c^2 derived from its circling momentum mc=Eo/c.</div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""> When no external force (besides the apparent 0.424 N central force) acts on the choton, the moving electron model moves longitudinally with velocity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">v</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>and with momentum<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">p</b>=gamma m<b class="">v</b>. The choton circulates with its longitudinal momentum component P-long = gamma mv, which is the electron’s linear momentum, and with a transverse momentum component P-trans = Po = mc. Using the Pythagorean equation, this gives the choton’s total momentum directed along its helical trajectory as P-total^2 = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 = (gamma mv)^2 + (mc)^2 = (gamma mc)^2, or P-total = gamma mc. The choton’s corresponding total energy is E-total = P-total c = gamma mc^2, which is the same as a relativistic electron’s total energy. </div><h4 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-bottom: 9pt;" class=""><span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""> When an external electric field<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>E<span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>acts on the circulating choton, the choton (with its inertial mass m=0.511 MeV/c^2) is accelerated by a net force<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Fnet<span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>equal to the rapidly rotating centripetal force<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Fc<span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">= 0.424 N plus the external force<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>F<span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">=-e</span>E.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">The total force on the choton is<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Fnet<span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>=<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Fc<span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>+ e</span>E<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">= m<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>a-total<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">in the non-relativistic case or<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>Fnet<span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>= d</span>p-total<span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">/dt in the relativistic case. The choton’s helical motion (the motion of the CC) will be changed by the external electric field<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>E<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">acting on the choton, and the choton’s CM (average position) will be affected accordingly, and move in the direction of the applied external force<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>E<span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">.</span></h4><h4 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-bottom: 9pt;" class=""><span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""> There are also quantum mechanical features of the above motion. As the choton changes its helical trajectory due to the applied electric field<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>E<span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">, the choton’s transverse momentum component P-trans = mc adjusts its orientation so that P-trans continues to be transverse to the choton’s new longitudinal motion with its new longitudinal component velocity<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span>v’<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">(the new electron velocity). In this way the calculated spin of the choton electron model continues to be Ro x Po = hbar/2 and the Pythogorean momentum relation continues to be P-total^2 = P-long^2 + P-trans^2 (which is mathematically equivalent to the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c4). Further information on the spin-1/2 charged photon model is at “Electron’s are spin 1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength” at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class=""><span style="font-weight: normal;" class="">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</span></a><span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""> (19<sup class="">th</sup><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>article).</span></h4><h4 style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; margin-bottom: 9pt;" class=""><span style="font-weight: normal;" class=""> In summary, the choton electron model does not need to be a rigid body to maintain the relation between CC and CM. All forces (including the apparent centripetal force F-cent) act on the choton (at the CC), which has its own inertial mass, producing the choton’s acceleration and average center of mass position CM. </span></h4><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class="">with warm regards,</div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;" class=""> Richard</div></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: Cambria;"> </p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">richgauthier@gmail.com</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">"></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Click here to unsubscribe</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); float: none; display: inline !important;" class=""></a></span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>