<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML dir=ltr xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE id=owaParaStyle type=text/css>P {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" bgColor=#ffffff ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Hi John W,</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Many thanks indeed for your comprehensive demolition of my scientific
reputation!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Your ultra-low
estimation of my understanding of certain aspects of Physics sent me into a
state of shock from which I’m only now recovering!</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Thankfully that dismissal of everything I thought I ever knew was
based on at least one apparently basic misreading of what I said, and
arguably at least one more misunderstanding of my observations.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Thankfully also, I don’t take
offence easily.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Your apparent misreading relates to my observations and causality and
my reference to Special Relativity.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>You have gone to great pains to ‘correct’ me on this point by assuring me
that SR does in fact subscribe to the universal principle of causality.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That’s really good of you – but I never
in fact suggested that it doesn’t.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In fact, if you look through my recent posts you’ll see I’ve gone to some
lengths to make it clear that SR is mathematically self-consistent; I believe
that it would be nonsensical to propose consistency for a theory that wasn’t
based on causality, a non-causal universe would be – pretty well by definition –
inconsistent (other than in respect of its own non-causality).</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>No, as I’ve explained in my response to Viv, my reference to lack of
causation was in respect of SR itself: I have seen NO reference in the
mainstream scientific press to the causation of phenomena that are categorised
as consequences of SR.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Of course
we’re told that SR is, effectively, the objective equivalence of all inertial
reference frames.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>How do we know
that?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Because if all inertial
frames WERE equivalent then we’d get effects as observed.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>As I’ve said to Viv, for me this is a
circular argument, it’s also no more scientific (IMO) than attributing the
existence of life on Earth to ‘God’ (though dressed up in rather more scientific
language - with maths).</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>I hope you’ll recognise the distinction between SR being/not-being a
theory that recognises causality as a fundamental principle and SR
being/not-being itself supported by explanation as to causation.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Rather than repeating here what I’ve
said in my response to Vivian, I’ll leave you to read it there.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I hope you’ll see, though, that this
distinction (again, IMO) renders quite large swathes of your reply
superfluous.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>With reference to the word ‘crumple’: apart from the fact that
photons surely do not “scrunch up” or “wrinkle” on interacting with matter to
form particles, it’s not a big issue to me.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However I’m not sure why you raise the
subject of photon absorption when that’s not at all the process that Vivian
and/or I were referring to.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>More to
the point, as I observe to Viv, the fact that pair production <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">may</I> involve matter does not mean that
matter is <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">required</I> for pair
production – this is demonstrably not the case.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[BTW in respect of your casual dismissal
of my reference to Landau & Lifshitz, my reply to Viv includes a reference
to the specific paper and the specific point that it makes.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’m not sure whether your suggestion
“</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>I think you must have read something garbled somewhere and accepted
this as fact</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>” is
intended as a slur on me, the L&L paper, or both.]<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>With regard to your refs to QED, these
don’t seem relevant to my questioning Viv’s case that: “It [the linear photon]
requires an interaction with matter” (his text following that describes a
direct physical interaction: photon-matter); in neither of the cases that I
cite is this a requirement.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Finally, I’m not quite sure where your passing reference to “ad
hominem” comes in?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In every respect
my observations have been in relation to Viv’s scientific line of argument; if
you see it otherwise then you must undoubtedly see a number of your own comments
in your response to me in that same light – including, not least, the one
</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>quoted </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>in the
paragraph above.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>No matter (and that’s not a pun, unlike your use of that phrase!), we
must agree to differ on various things – including, presumably, what constitutes
fair comment and what’s in any way offensive.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The trick is not to let it get to us and
just to get on with the work in hand.</SPAN></P>
<P
style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-GB>Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-GB>================<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></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=John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John Williamson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=martin.van.der.mark@philips.com
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">Mark, Martin van der</A> ; <A
title=srp2@srpinc.org href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">André Michaud</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, October 17, 2017 7:44
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General]
half-photons??</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma; DIRECTION: ltr; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>Dear Grahame,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>That is quite an extraordinary outburst about what seems to be a
fairly innocuous email by Viv. I thought you understood special relativity,
but there seems to be some lack of understanding in your email which, to help
redress the balance, I suppose I had better point out. I will go green, your
original is in dark blue.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Viv,</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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
<I>causation</I>.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Agreed.
This is a powerful principle.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Sorry,
but you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the word “relative” in the
context of “special relativity” and substituted a more prosaic meaning. SR is,
and has always been, causal. This is the basis of Einstien’s lack of belief in
“spooky action at a distance”. Relativity does not mix up cause and effect. It
affects merely the rate at which one leads to the other. One cannot switch to
frame where emitter becomes absorber and the absorber emitter. One cannot even
change the time ORDER without exceeding the limit of the speed of light. This
is one, very good, reason for that limit. Even if one did change the time
order, causality, in that the emitting object CAUSED the absorbing object to
heat/move/scatter or whatever would be preserved. This is the basis of the
idea that the positron is in some snce, a negative energy particle moving
backwards in time. It is some aspects of quantum mechanics, not relativity,
that are argued in some circles to be non-causal. In my view these arguments
are also usually incorrect. Causality should always be preserved.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Of
course it is: this is just what is usually done!</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">It
seems to me that it is your view of the supposed nature of the initial premise
is what is fallacious. Simply fixed! </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">You
are just, quite simply, completely wrong in your assertion here. You are, and
have been by the sounds of it, fooling yourself. Relativity never claimed to
be non causal, as far as I know. Do you have any proper references to any of
this?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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! </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Just
a minute, Photons are absorbed by matter. Is it just the word “crumple” you do
not like? Is that all?<BR></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">He
was talking about me here, at least in part. I did not use the word “crumple”,
though I quite like it. What I did was to propose a set of coupled
differential equations. These, when rest matter in the form of root-matter
were introduced, forced a rotation of the direction of resultant momentum
flow, the Poynting vector, to curve. Enough matter, and they bite their own
tail. In fact a long photon does kind of “crumple” into itself, having to add
all of its wavetrain into the incipient matter created (an electron positron
pair, for example), the resultant configuration rotates, is charged, has rest
mass, has spin half and is a stable minimum energy configuration. Also the
whole process is completely causal, as it should be. All described by a theory
with eight coupled differentail equations, extending the Maxwell equations.
Some maths then.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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. </SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">This
is also just completely wrong. Below is the quantum electrodynamics page from
Wikipedia. Note the presence of the matter (electron, and 4-momentum transfer
(root s) lines in the diagram. If QED isn’t “accepted theory”, I do not know
what is.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>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).</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I
think you must have read something garbled somewhere and accepted this as
fact. You can also find all of this theory in Landau and Lifshitz’ own books.
My copy is at work at the moment but I think it is the volume of their series
on “theoretical physics” entitled “quantum electrodynamics”. I suggest you
read it. In it, photons couple solely,in QED, to charge. Photons require
charge to be emitted, absorbed or to be annihilated in that charge is created
in process. No matter there to begin with in photon pair production, indeed,
but this is of no matter. The emitters of the initial photons are, and must be
there in QED, book-ending the whole thing and providing a rest frame in which
the “mass” exists continuously. If you could put the whole thing on a scale,
and there were no other losses, you could weigh it throughout with no weight
(or mass) gain or loss. In the theory. Now I do not think QED is the whole
story, far from it, but you cannot claim that this is a Vivian-ism in any way
shape or form.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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?</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Perhaps
not quite one hundred percent.Theory, indeed, makes new stuff up, but it
stands or falls by what is observed in experiment.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I
think one has to distinguish between arguments against this or that view,
which is what Viv has done as far as I can see, and direct attacks ad
hominem.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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.</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Fair
enough. Knowing Viv I do not think he will be offended. I think you should
apologise anyway though.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: green; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Best
regards,</SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND: white; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Grahame</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BACKGROUND: white; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"
lang=EN-US>Regards, JGW.</SPAN></P>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 16px">
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr" id=divRpF281620><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B>
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 6:50 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Nature of Light and Particles
- General Discussion<BR><B>Cc:</B> André Michaud<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[General] half-photons??<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Hello Grahame, Viv, Chip and others,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> I’m going to somewhat come to Viv’s defense here in the case
of his picturesque “crumpled photon” model of e-p pair production, which is
similar to the e-p production process from a photon, described by <SPAN
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(248,248,248); FONT-FAMILY: Roboto,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(75,75,75)">André.</SPAN> First
though, I accept the experimental finding that two photons can produce an e-p
pair. But in the case of an single incoming photon interacting with a nearby
atomic nucleus to transform the photon into an e-p pair, technically this is a
“collision” or interaction between a photon and a nucleus since there is a
significant exchange of momentum between them during this process . Assume
one-dimensional motion for the interaction for simplicity, with the incoming
photon moving in the positive direction to the right. The incoming photon
loses some momentum during e-p production and the atomic nucleus absorbs this
momentum and recoils slightly. The energy exchange between the photon and the
nucleus is insignificant in percentage terms due to kinematic rules and the
large difference in the energies of the incoming photon and the nucleus. But
if we consider the incoming photon to be composed of two helically circulating
spin-1/2 charged half-photons, each of these half-photons with energy E
receives some negative momentum from the nucleus, and each half-photon
is ultimately transformed into an electron (or a positron) with mass m.
The “before” energy momentum equation for each half-photon is E = p1 c
where p1 is the linear momentum of the each incoming half-photon and E is its
energy. The “after” relation for each produced electron or positron is E=sqrt
(p2 ^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4) from the relativistic energy momentum equation for
an electron, where p2 (which is less than p1) is the linear momentum of the
electron or positron formed in the interaction and E is the electron’s (or
positron’s) total energy. Some (perhaps most) of the energy E of each incoming
half-photon has been converted into the mass m of the produced electron or
positron. The momentum exchange of the half-photon -> electron (or
positron) transformation is delta p = p2 - p1 which is negative, and the
momentum exchange of the atomic nucleus is -delta p = p1-p2 which is
positive, causing the nucleus to recoil slightly to the right. The
produced electron and positron are each “crumpled” half-photons that now move
in double-looping internal orbits, forming the electron and the positron. The
produced electron and positron have some external linear momentum as well. So
the incoming photon is “crumpled” in the process of e-p production. The
incoming photon’s component helically-mutually-circulating spin-1/2 charged
half-photons separate and curl up to become an electron and a positron, each
with mass m, which the spin 1/2 charged half-photons didn’t have while
composing the incoming photon.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> My superluminal model of a spin-1/2 charged half-photon is
described (but incorrectly called a spin-1/2 charged photon) in “Transluminal
Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-1/2 Charged Photon Composing an Electron” at <A
href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers"
target=_blank>https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</A> (paper
#6). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> Richard</DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:50 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell <<A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
target=_blank>grahame@starweave.com</A>> wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Viv,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><EM>causation</EM>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Grahame</FONT></DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><FONT
color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,128) 2px solid; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; WORD-SPACING: 0px"
type="cite">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=viv@universephysics.com
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target=_blank>Viv Robinson</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=chipakins@gmail.com
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target=_blank>Chip Akins</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>;<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:31
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>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>
<DIV class=airmail_on>On 16 October 2017 at 5:55:28 AM, Chip Akins (<A
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target=_blank>chipakins@gmail.com</A>)
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=clean_bq type="cite"><SPAN>
<DIV lang=EN-US bgcolor="white">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=WordSection1>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Hi Grahame</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Yes. Perhaps semantics is getting in the way
regarding a photon within an electron.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>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.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>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.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Chip</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: rgb(225,225,225) 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<DIV 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"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>General [<A
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>]<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><B>On Behalf Of<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></B>Dr Grahame
Blackwell<BR><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday, October 16, 2017 6:37
AM<BR><B>To:</B><SPAN class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion <<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</A>><BR><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] Interference of
Photons</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Chip & all,</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV 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></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV 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></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</SPAN></DIV></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"
type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial,sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">----- Original
Message -----<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228)" 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"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=chipakins@gmail.com
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target=_blank>Chip
Akins</A></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV 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"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target=_blank>'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'</A></SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV 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"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Monday, October 16, 2017
12:20 PM</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV 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"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [General] Interference of
Photons</SPAN></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Hi John M and Vivian</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>First,<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><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.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><B>John M</B><SPAN>. One thing I wanted to
mention is related to your comment…</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>“My model obtains the exact force between
two particles at any separation if they had Planck charge rather
than charge<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><I>e.</I>”</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>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.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>So I will take a look at the gravitational
force between two electrons using this model and get back to
you.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><SPAN>Chip</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV
class=MsoNormal><SPAN></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>_______________________________________________<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>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><A
href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com"
target=_blank>viv@universephysics.com</A><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR><a href="<A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR>Click here to
unsubscribe<SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></a><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><BR></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>
<HR>
<DIV><BR
class=webkit-block-placeholder></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>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><A
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
target=_blank>grahame@starweave.com</A><BR><a href="<A
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A>"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px">_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px">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
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target=_blank>richgauthier@gmail.com</A><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><a
href="</SPAN><A
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target=_blank>http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px">"></SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px">Click
here to unsubscribe</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"></a></SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 13px Helvetica,Arial; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px"></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<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>