<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<STYLE>BODY {
FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px
}
</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Dear Vivian,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Thanks for your reply.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>First and foremost I need to say that I haven’t <B>ever</B> “chosen
to misrepresent” you; that’s the sort of emotive language that I find quite
unhelpful.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To make assumptions
regarding the intentions of others, and then state those assumptions as fact, is
always a risky business!<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I have
simply described my understanding of what you have said as it seems to me – and
hopefully always made it clear that this is what I’m doing.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[Why on earth would I <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">choose</I></B> to misrepresent
you?]<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Second, with regard to my being “pedantic” over your choice of words:
as I’ve said, I’m quite relaxed over the use of “crumpled” (though I see it
quite differently); however I cannot be so casual about your use of the word
“requires” when your proposed ‘requirement’ is in fact just one of at least two
options.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>For me this goes right to
the heart of scientific rigour: if, for example, a medical researcher stated
that onset of a particular medical condition ‘requires’ an elevated temperature
of five degrees above the norm, when in fact under some circumstances this need
not be the case, the consequences could be catastrophic.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Many parallel situations can be envisaged, in almost every branch of
science.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>I’d go so far as to say
that I wouldn’t be able to have a meaningful discussion with anyone who used
language in such a way to bolster their own scientific arguments.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Certainly a view of the nature of
Relativity, or of the structure of photons, that (in my view) misuses language
in this way would be of absolutely no interest to me.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If this makes me a pedant then, yes, I
plead guilty as charged – and I believe that science would be the worse for it
if others investigating fundamental aspects of our universe didn’t take the same
view.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>I agree 100% with your proposal that the circulating-photon model of
an electron (at a constant light-speed) accounts fully for observed phenomena
attributed to Relativity; this is a point that Chip and I have both been quite
vocal about pretty much since we each joined this group (as I understand your
position on this Chip – forgive me if that’s incorrect in any way) and that I’ve
been writing about for nigh on 20 years.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>This causes a changed perception/experience of time, distance and object
dimensions precisely in line with the observations that are put down to
Relativity.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In this respect
Relativity <B><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> a thing, and
it’s fully explainable as such.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>However this explanation stops short – <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">well</I></B> short – of supporting the
proposal that spacetime is of itself, by its nature, ‘relativistic’ – i.e. that
all inertial states of motion are equivalent, that there is no one unique such
state of motion that can be termed ‘objectively static’, from which all other
states of motion may be measured.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>In fact, it renders such a proposal superfluous, since all observed
phenomena can be fully explained without introducing this additional constraint
on the nature of reality.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>[I
include in this the apparent reciprocity of ‘relativistic’ effects, which can be
derived directly from this particle model.]<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>It is <B><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">that</I></B>
‘Principle of Relativity’ – the objective equivalence of all inertial states of
motion – for which I see absolutely <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">no</I></B> causation proposed (I'm talking
generally here, not just about your work).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Certainly the circling-photon model (on which we appear to be agreed)
offers no causal explanation for such a proposed phenomenon – at the same time
as explaining very clearly why such a proposal is unnecessary to explain
‘relativistic’ effects.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>So, then: I thoroughly applaud both experimental evidence and
mathematical rationale in support of any theory – and (as I observed to John W)
I have never questioned either of these in respect of SR or GR, in fact I have
endorsed them to the hilt.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>However,
what I am saying, and what is fully supported by logical analysis of the
circling-photon particle model, is that these experiments and math are
respectively illustrating and documenting <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">perceived</I></B> reality rather than <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">objective</I></B> reality.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>If one recognises that effects
attributed to Relativity are, in the main, <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">observer</I></B> effects (including
mechanical/atomic ‘observers’ such as clocks), coupled with objective
consequences such as the electromagnetic foreshortening of objects in motion
(Lorentz/Fitzgerald contraction), then in my view we have a pretty complete
theory!<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Where we come a-cropper is when we (i.e. mainstream science) insist
on tacking on a wholly unnecessary ‘addendum’ to the effect that reality <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> in fact that strange place that
our motion-affected senses and instruments tell us it is – that this train <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> longer (not just <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">seems</I></B> longer) for the guard on it
than it is for the trackside workman, that your watch <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> going slow in respect of my
reference frame whilst at the same time mine <B><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">is</I></B> going slow in respect of your
reference frame.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>This distinction between ‘seems’ and ‘is’ may appear to be a bit
irrelevant, but in fact it’s absolutely crucial if we’re to progress in our
practical understanding of the universe.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>From inertia to gravitation, from our handling of time to our handling of
space (and so arguably for the future viability of our species), every new
physical theory is required to conform to this frame-invariance constraint.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Since that constraint on physical laws
is arguably totally illusory, we are (it very much seems to me) placing
unnecessary obstacles in our path to future discovery and endeavour –
ultimately, in our path to the stars.<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-weight: bold"
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-weight: bold"
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; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"
lang=EN-GB>Grahame<o:p></o:p></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 26, 2017 5:41
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General]
half-photons??</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>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>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 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="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Your “</SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">physical
principles</I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">”
and my “</SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">causation</I><FONT
color=#000080 size=3 face=Arial>” are not at all the same thing</FONT><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial>”</FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=3 face=Arial>?
</FONT><FONT size=3 face=Arial>What is your causation, if not a physical
or scientific principle?</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>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 style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><SPAN style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"
class=Apple-tab-span></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>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 style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont> </DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont>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 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>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 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>Regarding your comment:- "<SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; 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="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">physical principles
supported by mathematics</I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">” refers to the
principles cited as</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">postulates</I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">of SR, rather than
those that provide</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">causation</I><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">for the observed
phenomena leading to those postulates.</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It still seems to me,
therefore, that my requirement for causation goes beyond those “</SPAN><I
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">physical
principles</I><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">”
that you require in order for a theory to be fully acceptable."</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica,Arial; FONT-SIZE: 13px"
id=bloop_customfont><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont>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 style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px" id=bloop_customfont>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="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: navy; 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 size=3 face=Arial>That’s just how it is</FONT><FONT
color=#000080 face=Arial>”</FONT><FONT color=#000080 size=3
face=Arial> </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 style="WHITE-SPACE: pre" class=Apple-tab-span>
</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 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>
<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" vlink="purple" link="blue">
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>