<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 face=Arial><FONT size=2>Hi <FONT
color=#000000>André,</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>I don't understand why a 3-D
perspective rules out de Broglie wavelength - it certainly doesn't in my
3-dimensionally based scenario. The de Broglie wavelength is the
wavelength attributable to the energy-flow component of the electron's formative
photon responsible for particle motion (as identified by Davisson & Germer),
whilst the Compton wavelength is the wavelength of the formative photon in a
static electron - which gives the cyclic component of the formative photon
travelling helically as a moving electron. In that moving electron those
two components combine as sides of a right-angled triangle (Pythag again!) to
give the full gamma-factored frequency of energy-flow in that moving particle,
corresponding to the 'relativistically' increased energy content of the moving
particle. [It's true, of course, that de Broglie wavelength never appears
as the peak-to-peak length of a wave in its own right, only as the 'wavelength'
of a component of the full photon wave that forms a moving
electron.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>Only the cyclic component will be
apparent to an observer (or instrument) travelling with that electron - the
linear component is not apparent due to a form of Doppler effect. This is
well shown in John Williamson & Martin van der Mark's paper 'Is the Electron
a Toroidal Photon?', in which they refer to these components as "time-like" and
"space-like". I don't agree with their proposal that this explains de
Broglie's 'Harmony of the Phases' - in my view a time dilation factor seems to
have gone missing - but the identification of these components as collinear-with
(de Broglie) and orthogonal-to (Compton) the direction of particle motion
is very well reasoned and presented.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000080 size=2 face=Arial>This perspective on particle
energy-flow can be used to explain fully the phenomenon referred to as 'inertial
mass' without reference to any extraneous bosons or fields, it also provides a
direct derivation of E = mc^2 without any reference to SR.</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> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </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; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=srp2@srpinc.org href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">André Michaud</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=richgauthier@gmail.com
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A> ; <A
title=general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:45
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [General] The Entangled
Double-Helix Superluminal Photon Model</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"
class=userStyles>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Hi
Richard,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Thanks for the link. I had a quick
look, and this brings me to clarify why I wrote that there can be no de
Broglie wavelength from the trispatial geometry perspective because I observe
that I did not clarify this point.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">It
is due to the fact that in the trispatial geometry, the carrying energy of a
moving electron is a full fledged electromagnetic "carrier-photon", which
possesses its own wavelength, which is separate from the Compton wavelength of
the electron. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">In
the trispatial geometry, there can be no common de Broglie wavelength, but
only a state of resonance between both wavelengths, whose form and extent of
volumes as a function of time depends uniquely on the possibly varying energy
of the carrier photon as the electron progresses in space since the wavelength
of the energy making up the invariant rest mass of the electron is
invariant.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">This means that to describe
electrons in motion from the trispatial perspective, the structure of the wave
function needs to be adapted to account for this. This is something beyond my
abilities to do, but that you or others would be better equipped math wise to
do eventually. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><BR><BR>Best Regards<BR>---</P><FOOTER
class=signatureDivContainer><FOOTER style="DISPLAY: inline"
class=signatureContainer>André Michaud<BR>GSJournal
admin<BR>http://www.gsjournal.net/<BR>http://www.srpinc.org/</FOOTER>
</FOOTER><FOOTER class=replyforwardcontainer><BR><BR><I>On Tue, 7 Nov 2017
06:25:31 -0800, Richard Gauthier
<RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM>wrote:</RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM></I><BR><BR>
<DIV>Hello<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">André</SPAN>and all,</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks you for your detailed comments comparing our approaches, which I
will come back to. One link to my Schroedinger equation article is <A
href="https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation">https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation</A>.
A link to a related article is at<A
href="https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics">https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics</A>.
Both articles can also be downloaded from<A
href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</A>.</DIV>
<DIV>An article making an analogy between photons in a cavity and electrons in
an atom is at<A
href="https://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron">https://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron</A>.</DIV>
<DIV>with warm regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Richard</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22 PM, André Michaud <<A
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FOOTER></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" class=userStyles>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Hi
Richard,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
will try to explain how I correlate my understanding of the wave-particle
duality with what I perceive your understanding is. But it is very difficult
to do, because, I understand this in the frame of the expanded trispatial
geometry, while you describe it from the perspective of the 4D space
geometry.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Also, from my understanding, there
exists only localized elementary charged particles in physical reality, and
even after they stabilize in various electromagnetic equilibrium states
(nucleons, atoms, molecules, larger bodies), that continue interacting
individually. Because of this, to me, there is no discontinuity between the
submicroscopic level, the macroscopic level and even with the astronomical
level. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">From my perspective, when I look
at a baseball in my hand and think of how it interacts, I see only the bunch
of electrons, up quarks and down quarks plus their carrying energy that make
up its mass that interact with the bunch of electrons, up quarks and down
quarks plus their carrying energy that make up the mass of my own body and the
Earth.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When you write: "<I>The question
is, what gives the photon its individual particle-like nature and also its
statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody knows",
</I>"</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
would qualify the last part as "<I> </I><I>Since the answer is that "nobody
knows <B>from the 4D space geometry perspective</B>", </I>", which is exactly
what de Broglie ended up concluding.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">This is what got me to thinking
and end up exploding the three ijk orthogonal vectors describing the
electromagnetic triply orthogonal relation of any point of the Maxwell
continuous EM wavefront into 3 full fledged orthogonal spaces, to see if this
could help, and I found that it does.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">But from this perspective,
particle-like behavior of localized elementary particles such as the photon
amount only to its longitudinal inertia coupled to a frontal cross-section
related to the extent of the transverse oscillation of its electromagnetically
oscillating half, and its wave-like behavior can only be the full extent of
this transverse electromagnetic oscillation.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">This transverse oscillation
amounts to a form of resonance of the energy of the photon, and the volume of
space visited by this resonance is the only thing that can be described by the
wave function in the trispatial geometry,<BR>metaphorically speaking, like the
wave function can describe the volume visited by a resonating (vibrating)
guitar string, but here the "guitar string" is the energy half quantum that
electromagnetically oscillates.<BR><BR>What you name its "<I>
</I><I>statistical wave-like nature</I>" to me is the distribution of its
energy density within the volume that it resonates in over a given time
period.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When you write: " <I>that the
helically-moving charged photon (now I would call it a half-photon) composing
an electron produces a quantum wave</I>"</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">This is a description that belong
to 4D space. In the 3-spaces geometry, this is not possible because the
electromagnetic oscillation is a reciprocating swing between both states. The
helical motion of the twin charges you describe however in your 4D model is
theoretically possible in the trispatial geometry, because both charges are
free to swivel freely on the Y-y/Y-z plane within electrostatic space while
the photon moves at c in X-space, which is why I think your model is fine even
from my 3-space perspective. The only difference is that in the trispatial
geometry, the charges symmetrically piston in and out in opposite directions
from zero presence to full extent at the frequency of the reciprocating
swing.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">But there is no such thing as a
"quantum wave" being produced or emitted in the trispatial
geometry.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">The only possibility for the wave
function to apply (to the trispaces photon model) is to describe the resonance
volume of space occupied by the oscillating EM energy while reciprocatingly
swinging between electric state and magnetic state. Nothing is emitted while
the photon travels.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Our approaches indeed are not very
different as you mention, but you would have to really get into the trispatial
geometry to see how close they are. The major difference rests with the
integration of the magnetic aspect, a feature that I see no possibility to
coherently integrate in the too restricted frame of 4D space
geometry.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Yes I have an electron model based
on the trispatial photon model. In fact, there is even a clear and seamless
mechanics of decoupling of a single 1.022 MeV or more photon into a pair of
electron and positron, but it can make mechanical sense only in the trispatial
geometry.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Here is a link to the paper
describing the decoupling mechanics, and also the inner structure of the
electron (and positron of course), titled "The Mechanics of Electron-Positron
Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model":</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><A
style="COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf">http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">There is no such thing in the
trispaces geometry as a de Broglie wavelength as you conceive, so I cannot
comment or relate anything to it.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When you write: " <I>A photon can
be "bound" in a wave cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on
its wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in many
possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the electron's energy in
the atom.</I><I>"</I></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When I think of a photon
interacting, I see it interacting with one or many other elementary particles.
To me a photon interacting with a wave cavity such as you consider, is only
one photon interacting with a bunch of other individual photons or other
charged EM particles such as electrons, positrons, up quarks and down quarks,
so I do not know how to correlate this with what you say. In the trispatial
geometry, free moving photons cannot stabilize into least action resonance
states within atoms, but they can communicate their energy to electrons so
captive, which causes them to jump farther away from nuclei or even completely
escape.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When you say: "<I>Maybe the
electron gives off one or more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable
resonant energy state in the atom.</I>"</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">When an electron stabilizes in a
least action resonance state in an atom, only "one" electromagnetic photon can
be emitted, carrying away the momentum related kinetic energy that the
electron accumulated while accelerating until stopped in its motion as it was
being captured. For example, a 13.6 eV photon is emitted when an electron is
captured by a proton to form a hydrogen atom.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">But overall, I think we really are
looking at the same thing from different angles, and seeing practically the
same thing, but with different color glasses, so to
speak.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I'd have a look at your paper "The
Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation" (article
21)." Can you give me a link?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Best
Regards</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><BR>---</P><BR>André Michaud<BR>GSJournal
admin<BR><A
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</A><BR><A
href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</A><BR><BR><I>On Mon, 6
Nov 2017 15:08:43 -0800, Richard Gauthier
<RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM>wrote:</RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM></I><BR><BR>
<DIV>Hi André,</DIV>
<DIV>Thank you for your very helpful comments and questions. The reason that
in 2002 I switched from a two-particle superluminal quantum model of a photon
to a one-particle superluminal quantum model was that I thought that the lack
of experimental evidence for two particles in a single photon's makeup would
decisively defeat this model. Now with a second look it seems that my own
rejection at that time of essentially the same model was premature. But I did
learn more about electron and photon modeling between then and now.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Referring to point 6 on the question of wave-particle duality, as you
know, the photon acts like a point particle when it is detected individually
by a charge-coupled-device (CCD) or other methods. But the statistical
distribution of photons when many photons are detected over an area follows a
predictable wave-like pattern predicted from the wavelength of the photon
(which can actually be measured consistently from such experiments). The
question is, what gives the photon its individual particle-like nature and
also its statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody
knows", I proposed in my electron model article "Electrons are spin-1/2
charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength" at <A
href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers</A>
(article #16) that the helically-moving charged photon (now I would call it a
half-photon) composing an electron produces a quantum wave, and showed
mathematically that this quantum wave predicts the electron's de Broglie
wavelength along the longitudinal direction the electron (composed of the
helically-moving charged photon) is moving. That gave me confidence that a
photon model (composed of 2 spin-1/2 charged photons) would emit similar
quantum waves that would have the photon model's helical wavelength and
frequency of rotation, but would also have a wave form and frequency and would
act like a quantum wave function to provide the necessary statistical
predictions about detecting photons.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You explain wave-particle duality differently in your photon model, as
due to transverse electromagnetic oscillations within your photon model.
Perhaps these two approaches are not so different. Do you have an electron
model based on your tri-space photon model, and if so does your electron model
generate the de Broglie wavelength?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Also, you said you associate the quantum wave of a photon with a
resonance volume associated with the photon rather than a "wave-being-emitted"
from the photon. Again, our approaches may not be so different. A photon can
be "bound" in a wave cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on
its wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in many
possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the electron's energy in
the atom. I see the superluminal energy quantum composing an electron as
something that seeks out through its quantum waves the possible resonant
states in an atom (or positive ion) it meets, based on the electron's energy
and wavelength, and then establishes itself in an energy state (with its
corresponding wave function) in the atom which is consistent with the
electron's energy (and its de Broglie wavelength). Maybe the electron gives
off one or more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable resonant energy
state in the atom. Something similar could happen when a photon enters a
cavity where it can settle into a resonance state if it has the necessary
wavelength. This I think is a new way of looking at quantum mechanics and is
quite tentative. My work connecting the "spin-1/2 charged photon" electron
model with the Schroedinger equation is at "The Charged-Photon Model of the
Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation" (article 21).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud <<A
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org">srp2@srpinc.org</A>> wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" class=userStyles>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Hi
Richard,</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
have been reading your last paper:</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"><A
style="COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline"
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant</A></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Quite interesting and clearly
described. Easy to visualize.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">The first point I note is your use
of a pair of charges in action within the photon structure, which is something
I agree must be the case. Since light can be polarized by magnetic fields, it
makes complete sense that charges, which are known to react to magnetic
fields, must be involved in a localized photon and that two of them need be
present and interacting, since how could a single point-like behaving charge
ever be polarized?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Referring to basic geometry, a
point can have no particular orientation in space while two point (charges)
physically located some distance apart, however close they may be, and between
which a distance (a line) can be measured, can transversally be oriented in
any direction on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion, which light
polarisation seems to involve.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
also agree with your correlating them with the concept of two half spin
half-photons, which gives the complete photon a spin of 1, which is in line
with de Broglie's hypothesis.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Since you make them move in a
double helical trajectory, they are de facto in mutual transverse alignment
with respect to the direction of motion, which makes your photon polarizable
in conformity with observation, and is in agreement with the known fact that
electromagnetic energy involves transverse oscillation, contrary to sound in a
medium which involves longitudinal oscillation of the medium.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">You mention that Caroppo (8) has
developed a hypothesis along the same lines without reference to de Broglie,
but I couldn't locate it to have a look because no doubt by mishap your (8)
refers to the Einstein-Pololsky-Rosen paper that fed initiated the debate with
Bohr (if I recall correctly) and in which I couldn't locate Caroppo's
name.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Since you make them spiral along
the trajectory, their slightly internal superluminal spiraling velocities are
consistent with the fact the photon proper would move at
c.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">You assign fixed values to both
charges, which is consistent with the fact that they remain at fixed distances
from the axis of motion. This is different from my model, in which their value
varies between a maximum and zero at each cycle. In my own model, I see the
concept of charge as a form of "recall potential", so to speak, that tends to
pull the energy making up the half-photons towards each other.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">As
for a quantum wave being generated by the photon, I have an entirely different
view of how the wave function applies to elementary particles. In particular,
since in my view, the wave function defines a resonance volume first and
foremost, I do not understand it as being something like a
"wave-being-emitted" only as a resonance volume within which oscillating
energy quanta would be contained in resonance state either while in
translational motion or when stabilized in some electromagnetic least action
state. So I have no comment for this part.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
think your model is consistent with splitting into a pair of separately moving
electron and positron if it has an energy of 1.022 MeV or more, just like my
own model.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
agree with your idea of the charges of both half-photons being Q and -Q
relative to each other, except in mine, their intensity cyclically varies. I
think your use of the Coulomb force to hold them is consistent. In my model, I
am still fuzzy about what the Coulomb force really is, so I am still in search
of how it really applies within the structure of my model, although I am
convinced that it applies. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
have no comment on entanglement.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">To
your possible criticism No. 1) regarding the superluminal velocity. I agree
that this is a problem.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">You put in the possible criticism
list the idea No. 2) the photon may be composite. </SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">No
possible criticism in this case in my view. If the photon was not composite,
it simply could not be polarized. If it was not composite, it would behave
point-like like the electron, a structure that has no orientation in space.
From my perspective, the very fact that it can be polarized by magnetic fields
is the proof that it is internally composite.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Your possible criticism No. 3) is
grounded on Larmor's hypothesis, not on physically observed behavior. No new
law is required. There is no account on record of electrons accelerating in
straight line that radiate energy while accelerating. You need to wiggle them
from side to side along the trajectory for them to release synchrotron
radiation. Also, the John Blewett experiments with the GE Betatron in the
1940`s showed that electrons on perfectly circular orbits do not radiate.
Electrons radiate in cyclotron`s storage rings only because their trajectories
are forced into "approximately circular" orbits, not "perfectly circular"
orbits.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Your No. 4) is no criticism
indeed, It simply is a possibility that single high enough energy photons
could possibly produce muon-antimuon pairs for example. Your photon model is
not oversimplified. I think it is ok in this respect.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Your No. 5) I would reformulate as
follows: "Light "beam" (made of individual photos) easily pass through each
other. You assume that their internal charges would interact with each other
and disturb their photon trajectories.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">If
the pair of charges of each photon can be polarized transversally, which is
what is observed, then what interaction they may have with each other will be
on the transverse plane, mutually affecting only the orientation of their
mutual polarities, which would not affect their trajectories, which is what is
observed. Besides, since they cross paths each moving at c, the interaction is
reduced to a barely measurable moment. We know they interact however, as
proved by the McDonald et. all experiments at SLAC in 1997 when they mutually
destabilized sufficiently for some 1.022 MeV (or more) photons in one of the
beams to convert to electron positron pairs.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Your Number 6). I see
wave-particle duality of the photon in the following manner: Longitudinal
point-like behaving cross-section during absorption, and transverse
electromagnetic oscillation (wave-like behavior) during motion. To me this is
the only meaning of wave-particle duality.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Your Number 7) is interesting. The
very structure of the 2 charges model of your photon model and of mine provide
the answer. Both charges being rigidly maintained by structure on either side
of the axis of motion of the photon, they can freely swivel on the
perpendicular plane from the minutest transverse electric or magnetic
interaction. This characteristic alone is sufficient in my view for entire
beams of photons to be forced into the same polarity orientation by subjecting
the beam to any specific electromagnetic constraint configuration.
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">I
would add two items to your list of possible
criticism</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">8)
How does the photon maintain its light velocity?</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">9)
Since photons are supposed to be electromagnetic, how can the electric and
magnetic fields that they are supposed to be associated with be
described?<BR><BR>Quite a biteful to chew on! You seem to have addressed most
issues that need to be analyzed about the photon.</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 10pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN
style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'">Best
Regards</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><BR>---</P><BR>André Michaud<BR>GSJournal
admin<BR><A
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/">http://www.gsjournal.net/</A><BR><A
href="http://www.srpinc.org/">http://www.srpinc.org/</A><BR><BR><I>On Tue, 31
Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier
<RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM>wrote:</RICHGAUTHIER@GMAIL.COM></I><BR><BR>Forwarded
from Chip
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>Begin forwarded message:</DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>From:
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Chip
Akins" <<A
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</A>></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>Subject:
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>[General]
Relativity</B></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>Date:
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">October
31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>To:
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">"'Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="MARGIN: 0px"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>Reply-To:
</B></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nature
of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<A
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</A>></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; page: WordSection1; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
class=WordSection1>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Hi
Grahame (and Andre)<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">A
while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically
self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically
self-consistent.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Regarding
logical self-consistent issues…<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">In
order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the
“landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">While
doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of
cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we
can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all
details.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So
we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development
of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Sound
waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply
because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium,
regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the
waves.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Light
also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So
there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes
of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Einstein
stated that “<I>light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which
is independent of the motion of the source</I>”, which is an incomplete
statement, logically inconsistent, because the<I>velocity c in empty
space</I>has no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some
other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity
simply must be stated in reference to something.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Einstein
also stated that, “<I>Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any
means.</I>” Which is indicated by experiment as well. So no problem
here.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">And
he then followed with the assertion that “<I>This is to say that the concept
of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.</I>”
(<I>Paraphrased</I>)<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">This
second conclusion is<I>not</I>fully logically supported by the evidence
presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “<I>light
is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the
motion of the source</I>”. There are alternate interpretations of this
evidence which are more causal and logical than this.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">First,
our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless.
There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly
measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which
stipulates their existence.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">We
can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is
causal, and yields results which match observation.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">For
example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame
of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same
“stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space,
then we would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be able
to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the
Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does not relegate as
meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">But
if “<I>the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.”</I>Then
how do we explain<I>“light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c
which is independent of the motion of the source”</I>and the resultant
Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">While
I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by
vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty
space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less
satisfactory answer logically because it does not
present<I>physical</I>cause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect,
coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being
able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent
reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed”
frame.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Lorentz
transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above
regarding the constitution of light a matter. These transformations are
required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same
“stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space.
This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">So
there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by
SR.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">When
we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which
the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter
are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz
transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly.
This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast
to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information,
but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically
consistent.<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Are
there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates
the case from a logical basis?<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Thoughts?<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Chip<O:P></O:P></DIV>
<DIV
style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><O:P></O:P></DIV></DIV><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">If
you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at</SPAN><A
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: purple; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com">richgauthier@gmail.com</A><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><a
href="</SPAN><A
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; COLOR: purple; WORD-SPACING: 0px; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</A><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">"></SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">Click
here to unsubscribe</SPAN><BR
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"><SPAN
style="TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; DISPLAY: inline !important; FONT: 12px Helvetica; WHITE-SPACE: normal; FLOAT: none; LETTER-SPACING: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px"></a></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>If you no longer
wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at grahame@starweave.com<BR><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"><BR>Click
here to unsubscribe<BR></a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>