<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Grahame and All,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Grahame,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">Thank you for your explanation. I am still don’t understand what you consider is the difference between a physical principle that I strongly suggest is the cause of something happening and what you call “causality”? What do you mean by "<span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">Your “</span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">physical principles</i><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">” and my “</span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">causation</i><font color="#000080" face="Arial" size="3">” are not at all the same thing</font><font color="#000080" face="Arial">”</font><font color="#000080" face="Arial" size="3">? </font><font face="Arial" size="3">What is your causation, if not a physical or scientific principle?</font></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">I think there will always be a fundamental difference between us regarding the importance of experiment and observation. I am firmly of the opinion that observation and experimental fact are reality. The interpretations of those realities can vary between different interpreters. If one theory or explanation for them does not match experiment or observation, it is the theory or interpretation that is wrong, not the observation or experiment. The only exception to that rule is when it is shown that there were errors in the experiment or observation. Pretending, as some do, that an elegant theory that doesn’t fit observation or experiment is still a good one is not “proper science.” </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">I agree there have been several theories that have made predictions based upon mathematics, which predictions were subsequently verified. These include Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and Dirac’s prediction of a positive electron. That they were subsequently verified by experiment is a credit to this mathematicians. However that does not mean the mathematics caused them. They had a physical reason to happen, a physical cause. As we now know, Dirac’s positron arises out of interactions involving high energy photons with other photons or nuclei. A physical principle causes an effect that was matched with mathematics. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it is totally understood. It is a strong suggestion that Dirac was on the right track and following scientists have a reasonably strong foundation for expanding on that work.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"> </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Let us now look at SR and GR. Einstein worked out the corrections for SR based upon the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. All his predictions have since been verified. I accept that the constancy of the speed of light is the cause of the effect and that Einstein’s calculations were an accurate reflection of that reality. That does not mean that I accept that SR is a “core feature of our universe” which has no other reason. To the contrary, I have written a paper concerning the proposal the an electron is composed of a photon of the appropriate energy that makes two revolutions within its wavelength. It is similar to a structure proposed by Williamson and van der Mark when they suggested an electron was a “toroidal photon”. Others have come up with similar models.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">An electron composed of a photon rotating at the speed of light, c, has some interesting properties. As fas as the constant speed of light is concerned, to move such a particle must orient its axis in its direction of travel. The rotating photon spirals its way through space. When it does that, the inability of an electromagnetic oscillation to travel other than at c means that it is automatically subject to the SR corrections of mass, length and time with velocity. Mathematically those corrections are little more than Pythagoras theorem applied to any particle composed of a rotating photon. </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Regarding your comment:- "<span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">this implies to me that you see no need for any (deeper) causal explanation for observations of SR; this in turn tells me that your “</span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">physical principles supported by mathematics</i><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">” refers to the principles cited as</span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">postulates</i><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">of SR, rather than those that provide</span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">causation</i><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">for the observed phenomena leading to those postulates.</span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">It still seems to me, therefore, that my requirement for causation goes beyond those “</span><i style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">physical principles</i><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">” that you require in order for a theory to be fully acceptable."</span><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;"><br></span></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">This is yet another example where you have chosen to misrepresent me. I am quite content to suggest that the rotating (toroidal) photon structure of matter is both the physical principle and cause behind the SR corrections. As such it lends great credence to the theory’s use of the word “relativity” in its title. Everything is observed relative to the observer. There is no fixed point against which all observations must be referenced. I suggest that what I have called the physical principle behind SR are the rotating (toroidal) photon structure of all matter and the constancy of the speed of light to all observers. I see no reason for any other explanation. Some have suggested my theory is incorrect because of the need to apply the SR correction to the rotating or toroidal photon structure. I do not accept that hypothesis. Instead I maintain that structure IS the cause of SR corrections. It is not subject to them. I would suggest that structure is your “Why is it so?” for SR.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">While talking about relativity I will raise a couple of issues concerning GR. Again the choice of relativity in the title implies everything is relative to the position of the observer. Einstein used the physical principles of the constancy of the speed of light to all observers and that mass distorts space-time, giving rise to gravity. They are physical principles. That his mathematics eludes most (mathematical) physicists does not make his work wrong. What does make GR wrong is the insistence of some mathematicians on extending the equations he developed beyond the region of their applicability. His field equations work well for weak gravitational fields. They break down as mass increases. I won’t go into that detail here. It can be worked out from Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Volume 1, Proposition 45 and the observation of the then unexplained precession of Mercury’s orbit. When that is understood and the mathematics expanded it brings the only conclusion possible. Mass does indeed distort space-time. Space-time distortion ds is composed of a space distortion dr and time distortion dt. It should go without saying that dr = z (gravitational redshift of photons) and dt = 1/z. It is not difficult to either derive or prove.</div> <div><br></div>I add that to Einstein’s SR because most people who criticize his work do so because they don’t understand either the physical principle behind them and/or the mathematics associated with them. IMHO they are soundly based. What is not soundly based is the extensions of GR into high mass regions and the prediction of events like black holes which “Have no physical principle, being instead an extension of Einstein’ field equations” - author unknown but is the general belief of all GR and black hole specialists. That is something I suggest has no causality. As far as their detection is concerned, astronomers have detected massive objects. It is theoreticians who claim they are black holes. <div><br></div><div>I admit that, word for word, you did not mis quote me. I apologize. You were correct, you misrepresented me. In the example of SR above I again strongly suggest you again misrepresented me by assuming I was unaware of any physical reason for SR corrections to apply. If you have a better physical reason for the SR corrections I would be happy to browse it. IMHO, I think you are being a little pedantic over the choice of words such as “crumpled” or “split” or “required” for a single gamma. This discussion began with my physical and mathematical representation of photons. I suggest that if you look at my figure 5 representation of a photon that such a spiraling structure could, when it impacted on a large nucleus be “wrinkled" before it split. </div><div><br></div><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>The object of again presenting that paper to this group was because people keep referring to photons and offering no description, physical or mathematical, as to what is a photon. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you all seem to also mention photons without ever referencing what is meant. A sort of accept it as a "fundamental principle of the universe”, one of those "<span style="color: navy; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">That’s just how it is</span>” things. I was hoping to get some discussion on whether this is a representation of a photon or it is not because of …. If you or anyone has comments about those representations of a photon I would appreciate some feedback. That would be far better than an acceptance of "<font color="#000080" face="Arial" size="3">That’s just how it is</font><font color="#000080" face="Arial">”</font><font color="#000080" face="Arial" size="3"> </font>In the absence of comment or other presentation is seems that the photon is accepted as a photon of unknown structure. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Vivian Robinson</div><div> <div id="bloop_sign_1508980544189966848" class="bloop_sign"></div> <div><br></div>PS<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Grahame, I respectfully suggest at the structure and properties of a photon through its wave function Psi are more important than misrepresenting what one person may or may not have said and getting carried away by the interpretations of single words. </div><div><br></div><div>VR<br><p class="airmail_on">On 24 October 2017 at 3:25:38 PM, Dr Grahame Blackwell (<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" bgcolor="#ffffff"><div></div><div>
<div>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang="EN-GB">Hi
Vivian,<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">I’m pleased
to be able to assure you that I quite definitely haven’t misquoted you in
respect of the point that you refer to – since I haven’t actually quoted you at
all, nor claimed to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Rather I was
responding to my understanding of your view on the matter as you’d expressed it;
reading your text below, I see no reason to change my understanding, though of
course I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve misrepresented your view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[N.B. any intended quotes appear in
“double quotes” and are direct cut-&-pastes – as is always my way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(Not all such double-quotes are intended
as quotes from you, however.)]<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">Your second
point: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">experiment and/or observation are
the final arbiters</i>” is the one that I felt (and still feel) is very much
open to question: as I have observed in relation to Relativity Theory, it’s
perfectly possible to formulate a coherent theory that fits both experiment and
observation – and yet is very much a matter of conjecture, until and unless one
is able to provide a coherent causal explanation for those observations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>SR proposes the equivalence of all
inertial reference frames (no ‘preferred’ frame) and there is ample experimental
and observational evidence to support this theory – but (unless I have missed
something) absolutely NO explanation as to causation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s proposed, as I understand it, that
this is simply a core feature of our universe – a ‘Prime Cause’, if you
like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The evidence offered for this
proposal is/are those observations – which seems to me rather like a circular
argument: observations lead to Fundamental Principle which leads to
observations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I can’t help noting
that, although more scientific-sounding, this is actually no more scientific
than the proposal that the origin of life on Earth is ‘God’ (a proposal that’s
widely derided by the same ‘scientific minds’ that are so sold on
SR).<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">Hence my
understanding of your point that “<i>explanations should be based upon physical
principles supported by mathematics</i><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic">”; since you appear to accept SR
'as is', this implies to me that you see no need for any (deeper) causal
explanation for observations of SR; this in turn tells me that your “<i>physical
principles supported by mathematics</i>” refers to the principles cited as
<i>postulates</i> of SR, rather than those that provide <i>causation</i> for the
observed phenomena leading to those postulates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It still seems to me, therefore, that my
requirement for causation goes beyond those “<i>physical principles</i>” that
you require in order for a theory to be fully acceptable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Your “<i>physical principles</i>” and my
“<i>causation</i>” are not at all the same thing.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" 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; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" lang="EN-GB">This is, and always has been in my understanding, a guiding principle
of physics: when something is found to be so, the next question is “<i>Why</i>
is it so?”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Uniquely (it seems to
me) in respect of SR, this question has been skipped over by mainstream physics
with the answer “It just is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Get
over it and move on”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since all
experimental measurements fit with the accepted view – measured data fits theory
and math – science has done exactly that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My serious concern is that the ‘moving
on’ has been, and is being, severely constrained by this disinclination to
identify causation beyond “That’s just how it is”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" 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; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" lang="EN-GB">In particular, no attempt appears to have been made in the mainstream
to consider the possibility that observational data is in fact itself an
observer effect – that a state of motion will affect both human observation and
instrumentation so as to give the appearance of frame symmetry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Indeed, it is often explicitly stated
that any alternative interpretation of SR observations, in order to be
considered, must: (a) point to some phenomenon or observation that contradicts
SR postulates; and (b) provide a new interpretation that includes all
observations to date and additionally explains this new observation not covered
by SR.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If a coherent causal
explanation for SR already existed then this would be utterly reasonable; in the
absence of same, to hold rigidly to an unexplained principle rather than being
open to a possible causal alternative that puts the findings of SR in a totally
different light whilst both explaining all experimental data AND showing WHY all
such experiments will give results consistent with the idea of frame symmetry
(though itself not subscribing to frame symmetry) does not seem to me to be at
all in line with the spirit of scientific inquiry.</span><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" lang="EN-GB"><o:p><font size="3"> </font></o:p></span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy" lang="EN-GB"><font size="3">Continuing
on</font></span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang="EN-GB"> to your point about my point about your point about pair production:
in your response below you use the words “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">often</i>” and “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">can</i>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t disagree with either of those
points, however they don’t actually address the point I made, which was in
response to your assertion that: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">“</b>I
agree that "<i>a linear photon could not by itself form an electron</i>”. It
requires an interaction with matter.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal">”</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</span>It’s unquestionably the case, as you have noted, that e+/e- pair
production “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">can</i>” involve a nucleus,
also that pair production “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">often</i>”
involves a heavy nucleus, particularly in the context of nuclear power
generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However this is not
quite the same as “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">requires</i> an
interaction with matter”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s in
response to your “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">requires</i>” that I
cited two clear instances where an interaction (of a linear photon) with matter
was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">not</i> required to produce e+/e-
pairs: Landau & Lifshitz’s finding (Sov. Phys 1934, vol. 6, P.244ff) that
pair production in collider experiments is characterised by prior production of
high-energy photons that then collide to form particle-antiparticle pairs; The
Breit-Wheeler Process, actualised as a multi-photon event at SLAC in 1997.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In neither of these does matter
interact with a photon to produce those pairs.<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">This is not
a hair-splitting detail, it’s fundamental: it’s misleading to say that a process
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">“requires</i>” something that may be
involved in some instances but in others it will not be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I restate my point that <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic">a linear photon could not by itself form an
electron</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"> </b><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic">–</span> in some cases it will require
another photon, in others it will require an interaction with matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In both of these cases the issues of
conservation of energy and momentum are both dealt with more than
adequately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>[And yes, I fully agree
with: “That they can also be produced in gamma-gamma colliders does not mean
their production from single gamma to a nucleus cannot occur” – but it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">does</i> mean that the latter is not “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">required</i>”.]<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">I’d agree
that my taking issue with “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">crumple</i>”
is largely a matter of semantics (I have no such problem with “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">split</i>”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For me (and for the dictionary) the word
‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">crumple</i>’ has a clear meaning –
‘scrunched up’, ‘wrinkled’ – and this to me is totally contrary to the concept
of a rectilinear energy-flow smoothly transforming into a cyclic localised
pattern (which, one way or another, the energy content of an electron or
positron must be).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I apologise if
this is seen as over-rigid adherence to the constraints of language
detail!<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">I 100%
applaud your consistent call for attention to detail, be it mathematical or
experimental; the main purpose of my response was to add to that a requirement
for clear identification of causation – or at least a serious attempt to
identify causation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I have long
felt, and still feel more than ever, that SR has somehow ‘slipped through the
net’ in respect of this key element of scientific rigour; if that oversight is
to be rectified (as it must, for physics to move forward), then it’s very likely
to be from within this group: this no-go element of the Cosmic Elephant (to use
Chandra’s term) must be squarely addressed.<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">I’m truly
sorry if my previous response has given offence in any way; it may be that I am
over-zealous in my attempts to draw attention to details (crucial details!) that
have been hiding in a cupboard for to long.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I honestly believe that scientific
progress is seriously, and sadly, limited by assumptions that sometimes we don’t
even realise we’re assuming – and I’m glad to be part of a group that’s not
afraid to call out such assumptions and give them light and air, and
well-reasoned responses.<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">Sincerely,<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</span></p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang="EN-GB"></span> </p>
<p style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang="EN-GB">=========</span></p></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a title="viv@universephysics.com" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Viv
Robinson</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="grahame@starweave.com" href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">Dr Grahame Blackwell</a> ; <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light and
Particles - General Discussion</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, October 19, 2017 4:09
AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
half-photons??</div>
<div><br></div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">Grahame,</div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont">Thank you for your response. I
respectfully suggest that you have misquoted me. My statements were and still
are that "<i style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica, Arial; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT-SIZE: 13px">explanations
should be based upon physical principles supported by mathematics</i>”<font size="3"> and “<i>experiment and/or observation are the
final arbiters</i>" of a theory. </font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont">
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">I am a little
perplexed at what you see as a fundamental difference between
your “causation” and my “physical principle”. IMHO they are the
same thing. Some physical principle is needed to cause an event to happen.
Mathematics can be used to calculate the magnitude of the physical
principle that causes the event. </font><span style="FONT-SIZE: medium">If you believe physical principles are fundamentally
different from causation, I will consider your viewpoint.</span></div></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">Regarding the
production of particle/anti-particle pairs. I realize that Wikipedia may not
be the world’s best authority on the matter. However from their
website “Pair-Production” I quote "</font><i><span style="FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34); FONT-SIZE: 14px">Pair
production often refers specifically to a </span><a style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: none; FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,0,128); FONT-SIZE: 14px; TEXT-DECORATION: none" title="Photon" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon">photon</a> </i><i style="FONT-FAMILY: sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34); FONT-SIZE: 14px">creating
an electron-positron pair near a nucleus</i><font color="#222222" face="sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">.” </span></font><span style="FONT-SIZE: medium">From the website "</span><font size="3">Positron
Electron Pair Production - </font><font color="#222222" face="sans-serif"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 14px">Nuclear Power", I quote "</span></font><i><strong style="BOX-SIZING: border-box; FONT-FAMILY: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(116,116,116); FONT-SIZE: 15px">The
presence of an electric field of a heavy atom such as lead or
uranium</strong></i><strong style="BOX-SIZING: border-box; FONT-FAMILY: 'PT Sans', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(116,116,116); FONT-SIZE: 15px"><i> is
essential in order to satisfy conservation of momentum and
energy</i>”. </strong><span style="FONT-SIZE: medium">Similar sentiments
expressed in other websites indicate a nucleus is needed for the conservation
of momentum during electron positron pair production. </span>Based upon
those and similar website comments, as well as my recollections of what I was
taught during my University nuclear physics course, I am prepared to accept
that a nucleus can be involved in electron positron pair
production. </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont">You may call those references
subjective if you wish. I prefer to think of them as referenced experimental
observations. I will acknowledge that my use of the words “crumbled" or “bent”
were perhaps too short to express the observation that a <span style="FONT-SIZE: medium">high energy photon enters the high electric field
density associated with a large nucleus, </span><font size="3">transfers
its momentum to the nucleus, alters its properties, including splitting in
two, and produces an electron positron pair. </font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><span style="FONT-SIZE: medium">That they can also be produced in gamma-gamma
colliders does not mean their production from single gamma to a nucleus
cannot occur. </span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">One of
the reason for my comments was the number of communications where
contributors make statements without the support of a physical principle
or mathematics. The discussions go back and forth about the validity of what
appear to be ideas forwarded without a physical principle or mathematics
to support them. If that is what this discussion group wants, iso be it.
It also seems to me that when some, such as John W or Martin vd M, offer
corrective comments, many of which are well founded in observation and
often standard model physics, less than favorable comments are made based
upon what appears to be subjective criticism. I was hoping that some could see
the benefit of comments based upon physical principles and supported by
mathematics. At least Chip has indicated he will soon forward his ideas on
half photons and their implications based upon his calculations. I hope
others would do the same.</font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">In the meantime as
the word photon is used extensively in this “nature of light and
particles” discussion group, I have forwarded my physical description of
photons along with mathematical representations. I am quite happy to receive
communications concerning other contributor’s interpretation of a photon.
But please, give a physical description and some supporting mathematics
to enable objective discussion to occur. Some standard
model physicists hide behind the uncertainty principle and say we
cannot determine the structure of photons (some also include electrons).
They call them point particles to which they attach labels. I
hope this is not</font><span style="FONT-SIZE: medium"> acceptable
to this discussion group.</span></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">Sincerely,</font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font size="3">Vivian
Robinson</font></div><br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 17 October 2017 at 5:51:13 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell (<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a>) wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite"><span>
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div></div>
<div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">Viv,</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">I have seen many times your
assertion that theories should be supported by (a) experiment and (b)
mathematics. Whilst I don't disagree, I'd respectfully suggest that
there's a third factor without which those first two can still lead to false
conclusions. That third factor is <em>causation</em>.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">I am strongly of the view that we
live in a causal universe; if we don't then we may as well all pack up our
theories and retire, since any theory becomes worthless in a non-causal
universe. One classic example of where causation has been left out of
every proposal is Relativity Theory: we're asked to accept that the wholly
relative universe is just how it is, however counter-intuitive, without any
explanation or proposal as to causation.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">For myself, I'm fully content
that it's possible to derive ALL findings of SR and GR from a non-relative
framework - i.e. to explain causation for all of those findings. This
derivation actually includes the inevitable consequence that readings from
instruments made from physical matter will produce results that wholly
accord with the notion that the universe IS intrinsically relative. In
other words I can formulate a theory of a wholly relative universe,
produce a mathematically self-consistent theory, and demonstrate the
validity of that theory through experiment - EVEN IF my initial premise is
completely fallacious. This is precisely what's been done, pretty much
continuously, for the past 100+ years.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">If, however, I consider
causation: "WHY do I get results that appear to fly in the face of common
sense?" - then it's absolutely possible to produce a self-consistent,
mathematically robust theory that provides a full explanation as to
causation AND AT THE SAME TIME leads to experimental results exactly as
found. For me a theory that includes firm mathematics, full consistent
experimental validation AND causation beats hands-down a theory that
includes both of your preferred factors but neglects to consider
causation.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">I do feel, also, that sometimes
you choose what does and doesn't 'count' to suit your own theories.
Notably below you take issue with (deride?) the theories of others - yet
you're quite prepared to propose that a photon would 'crumple' on colliding
with matter! Sorry, but for me that doesn't wash - at least not
without a lot more rationale than you've provided. A photon isn't a
Ford or a Lamborghini, why on earth is it 'not unrealistic' to expect that
it would behave in like manner?? I suggest, Vivian, that if another in
the group had proposed this notion and it didn't fit with your chosen view,
then it's more than likely that you'd have had little truck with it and been
quite vocal in your dismissal of it.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">You also say that a photon
"requires an interaction with matter" to form an electron. Where did
this come from? Is it a pure Vivian-ism? It certainly doesn't
accord with well-established experimental evidence (or accepted
theory) to date. As I stated previously, Landau & Lifshitz
established that the essential precursor to e+/e- pair production is
generation of two then-colliding photons (not matter, notice); the
Breit-Wheeler Process demands no matter to be involved; the 1997 SLAC
pair-production demonstration generated e+/e- pairs from collision of
photons - no matter there (apart from containing vessels - and I've not
heard anyone suggest that those containing vessels took any significant part
in the process, the evidence as presented indicates that it was all down to
those colliding photons).</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">Viv, you talk about "subjective
opinion" and regularly offer the pre-eminence of experiment and math.
Both math and experiment support the notion of two colliding photons
generating an e+/e- pair (absolutely supporting the view that half of each
photon has gone into formation of of each particle) - whereas your notion of
a photon 'crumpling' on hitting matter to produce such a pair has absolutely
no such provenance to my knowledge, mathematical or experimental.
Would you consider me unjustified in suggesting that your 'crumpled/bent'
photon forming such a particle-antiparticle pair is 100% subjective
opinion?</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">I'm not really convinced, Viv,
that you apply the same level of critical appraisal to your own views as you
do - often quite harshly - to the views of others.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">I hope you find these
observations helpful - they're intended to redress the balance in what
I see as a somewhat less than even-handed perspective.</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">Best regards,</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial">Grahame</font></div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000080" size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a title="viv@universephysics.com" href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">Viv
Robinson</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="chipakins@gmail.com" href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">Chip Akins</a> ; <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">Nature of Light
and Particles - General Discussion</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:31
AM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Interference
of Photons</div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">Hi Chip, Grahame and All,</div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">I have tried to suggest that explanations should be
based upon physical principles supported by mathematics. To that end my
last correspondence gave a physical description of different types of
photons in terms of their electric and magnetic fields. Their mathematical
form of the wave function Psi was also presented. Both depended upon the
physical properties of free space, the electric permittivity and magnetic
permeability. To the best of my knowledge no other representation of a
photon has been presented to this group. Many keep mentioning photons
without describing what they mean. The side benefit of that is
participants can attribute any property they do or do not desire to a
photon. </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">Chip, what is meant by "<i>half a photon</i>"? How can
“<i>half a photon</i>” exist without the other half? Regarding your
comment "<i>The whole photon does not possess the properties it takes to
be confined to become and electron</i>” John W (and Martin v d M may)
suggest that it is possible, John W has also used some mathematics sin
support of that proposal.. When a full circularly polarized photon makes
two revolutions per wavelength the electric polarities and magnetic fields
reinforce each other. This does not occur with any other combination of
rotations per wavelength. That model explains many known electron
properties and makes many predictions that can be tested experimentally.
IMHO that gives a way that full photons can give rise to particles in
general and electrons in particular. </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont">Grahame, I agree that a
"<font color="#000080" size="3" face="Arial, sans-serif"><i>a linear photon
could not by itself form an electron</i></font><font color="#000080" face="Arial, sans-serif">”</font><font color="#000080" size="3" face="Arial, sans-serif">. It requires an interaction with matter. Without
going into great detail, it is not unrealistic to expect that, at such
interaction or collision the photon could “crumple” or bend and
split. Half the photon would be confined to a negative charge, an
electron, and the other half to a positive charge, a positron.
Without a definition of a half photon, I am not sure how that idea differs
from particle/anti-particle formation from a single energetic
photon “splitting” into two confined “half photons”. As
mentioned above, a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave making two
revolutions within its wavelength will reinforce its electric and
magnetic properties in a way that no other combination
of rotations per wavelength can.</font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont"><font color="#000080" size="3" face="Arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px" id="bloop_customfont">It would help your case if
you were to give a description of half a photon and how "<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </span><i style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial, sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">two
half-photons (of requisite energy) can form an electron</i><font color="#000080" face="Arial, sans-serif">”<font size="3">. Without those sorts
of </font></font><font color="#000080" size="3" face="Arial, sans-serif">explanations, everything is subjective
opinion. </font></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">Cheers </div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont"><br></div>
<div style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px" id="bloop_customfont">Vivian R</div><br>
<div id="bloop_sign_1508188418014103808" class="bloop_sign"></div><br>
<p class="airmail_on">On 16 October 2017 at 5:55:28 AM, Chip Akins (<a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p>
<blockquote class="clean_bq" type="cite"><span>
<div lang="EN-US" bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div></div>
<div><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black">Hi
Grahame<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black">Yes. Perhaps semantics is
getting in the way regarding a photon within an
electron.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black">It seems that the correct
half of what makes a photon would possess a single polarity of electric
charge. That is a portion of my objection to using the term photon
for this form of energy. A photon does not possess a single
polarity of charge. But a photon does not have the capacity to be
fully confined in three dimensions and exhibit ½ hbar spin
either.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black">So to me, so much has to
be different from the properties of a photon, that calling this
propagating energy within the electron a photon is not really an
accurate or clear description. But if one want to imagine that a
photon can have charge, and a photon can be fully confined (not travel
in a straight line at c), and can possess ½ hbar spin, then they could
still call this thing a photon. Just doesn’t seem correct to
me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black">Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #e1e1e1 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">From:</span></b><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, October
16, 2017 6:37 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General] Interference of Photons<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Hi
Chip & all,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Having
written of an electron as being a cyclic-photon construct, I have to
agree with Chip that there are compelling reasons why a linear photon
could not by itself form an electron. My concept of a 'cyclic
photon' is that of an electromagnetic waveform like a linear photon, but
constrained by its own electromagnetic field interactions to travel in a
cyclic path rather than linearly. In my parlance this doesn't make
it 'not a photon' - it depends on whether one's definition of a photon
is necessarily something that travels in a straight line or whether one
regards it simply as a packet of electromagnetic energy in the form of a
self-propagating time-varying electromagnetic field effect: the
latter is my understanding of the term.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">So
whilst I don't totally agree with Chip's view that there isn't a photon
circulating in (or rather AS) an electron, this is due to our differing
views on what constitutes a photon - it appears that we're agreed on
what constitutes an electron. I'm also fully in agreement with
Chip (and all experimental evidence that I know of) that two
half-photons (of requisite energy) can form an
electron.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Best
regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: navy 1.5pt solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN: 5pt 0in 5pt 3.75pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial',sans-serif; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-</span></p></div></blockquote></div></div></div></span></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></span></blockquote></div></blockquote>
</div></div></span></blockquote></div></body></html>