<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Chip,<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
thanks for your answer. My question:<br>
<br>
Does the electron in the orbit see a magnetic field? I do not know
why it should. If there is only one electron in the orbit it would
have a magnetic field if seen from the outside. But the particle
itself cannot see a magnetic field caused by itself. - We should
always be aware of the fact that a magnetic field is not an
independent force but an apparent force seen if an electrical
charge is moving. This is caused by relativistic effects like the
propagation time of the electrical field. <br>
<br>
A special case in the hydrogen atom is the ground state of the
atom. In this state the electron does not have an orbital
momentum. It moves forth and back through the nucleus. In this
special situation there is not at all a reason for a magnetic
field, even if seen from the outside.<br>
<br>
For your calculation another question of mine: What does your
factor alpha mean? Does it have to do with the fine structure
constant?<br>
<br>
And a comment to the Zitterbewegung, which is often understood as
quite mysterious. The electron has an internal oscillation with
speed c. This oscillation which is common for all elementary
particles is the cause of relativistic dilation. It was already
assumed by Lorentz / Poincare prior to Einstein. But at that time
this assumption was not taken as serious. In 1930 it was
re-detected by Schrödinger when he analysed the relativistic Dirac
function. - And this motion has to be a circular one, otherwise
the electron would not have a spin and a magnetic moment.<br>
<br>
For the rest of your calculations I need a bit more time to
understand them. It will take some days because I am just on
travel. So I kindly ask you for patience. <br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
Am 10.11.2017 um 22:58 schrieb Chip Akins:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:065301d35a6e$fbbd5cb0$f3381610$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[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">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I was recently reviewing the de Broglie
hypothesis and comparing that to conditions found in the
hydrogen atom.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andre has shown how the force
(8.238722E-08) of magnetic and electric fields are equal at
this particular orbital radius (5.29177E-11m)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I have not yet understood the magnetic
field force vector compared to the electric field force vector
in this orbit, or exactly how the interaction of magnetic and
electric field components could quantize each of the
respective orbitals of the hydrogen atom.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However I did find that there is a
wavelength naturally generated by the motion of the electron
in this orbit which provides for a wavelength which is
precisely ¼ the de Broglie wavelength for an electron at this
velocity (α c). If we take the Zitter frequency with motion at
velocity for the orbital radius plus the electron radius and
subtract from that the Zitter frequency with motion at
velocity for the orbital radius minus the electron radius, we
obtain a wavelength for the difference frequency which is
exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. I am sure this must have
been seen before.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As it turns out one derivation for this
wavelength for each orbital can also be expressed as:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte msEquation 12]><m:oMathPara><m:oMath><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;font-style:italic'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>λ</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>m</m:r></span></i></m:sub></m:sSub><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>=</m:r></span></i><m:f><m:fPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:fPr><m:num><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>n</m:r><m:r> </m:r><m:r>c</m:r></span></i></m:num><m:den><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>2</m:r><m:r>α</m:r><m:r> </m:r></span></i><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>f</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>Ze</m:r></span></m:sub></m:sSub></m:den></m:f></m:oMath></m:oMathPara><![endif]--><!--[if !msEquation]--><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part1.7833C7A6.D80313AB@a-giese.de" class=""
height="36" width="83"></span><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where <i>n</i> = 1, 2, 3… and <i>f<sub>Ze</sub></i>
is the Zitter frequency of the electron.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course the de Broglie frequency for this
electron would then just be<!--[if gte msEquation 12]><m:oMath><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r> </m:r></span></i><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>λ</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>db</m:r></span></m:sub></m:sSub><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>=</m:r></span></i><m:f><m:fPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif;font-style:italic'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:fPr><m:num><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>h</m:r></span></i></m:num><m:den><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>m</m:r><m:r> </m:r><m:r>v</m:r></span></i></m:den></m:f><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r> =</m:r><m:r>4</m:r></span></i><m:f><m:fPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:fPr><m:num><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>c</m:r></span></i></m:num><m:den><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>2</m:r><m:r>α</m:r><m:r> </m:r></span></i><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>f</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>Z</m:r><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>e</m:r></span></m:sub></m:sSub></m:den></m:f></m:oMath><![endif]--><!--[if !msEquation]--><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black;position:relative;top:8.5pt;mso-text-raise:-8.5pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part2.BDC2514A.C8B4CD86@a-giese.de" class=""
height="30" width="139"></span><!--[endif]-->. Where <i>f<sub>Ze</sub></i>
is the Zitter frequency of the electron:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So that the de Broglie wavelength for the
quantized orbitals are:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte msEquation 12]><m:oMathPara><m:oMath><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>λ</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>db</m:r></span></m:sub></m:sSub><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>=4</m:r></span></i><m:f><m:fPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:fPr><m:num><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>n</m:r><m:r> </m:r><m:r>c</m:r></span></i></m:num><m:den><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>2</m:r><m:r>α</m:r><m:r> </m:r></span></i><m:sSub><m:sSubPr><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:ctrlPr></m:ctrlPr></span></m:sSubPr><m:e><i><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r>f</m:r></span></i></m:e><m:sub><span style='font-family:"Cambria Math",serif'><m:r><m:rPr><m:scr m:val="roman"/><m:sty m:val="p"/></m:rPr>Ze</m:r></span></m:sub></m:sSub></m:den></m:f></m:oMath></m:oMathPara><![endif]--><!--[if !msEquation]--><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><img
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="cid:part3.0931F27D.49205A35@a-giese.de" class=""
height="36" width="98"></span><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where <i>n</i> = 1, 2, 3…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thought this was interesting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 10, 2017 1:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de Broglie
wavelength<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hi Colleagues!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>I did not follow all details of the preceding discussion. But
I feel motivated to comment to two points which came up here
again and again. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>One point is the de Broglie wave. For this I recommend
everyone to look into the thesis of de Broglie. It is in
original in French, but there is a nice translation done by Al
Kracklauer *). And I find it easily visible that de Broglie's
idea of his wave is based on an error. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>*) <a
href="http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>De Broglie has meant to have detected the following conflict:
Physics assumes that there is a permanent oscillation in a
particle (like an electron) which depends on its (full) energy
according to the equation: E = h*f , where f is the internal
frequency. Question was: what happens if the particle is set
to motion? Clearly its energy increases by the kinetic energy.
So the frequency f has to increase. On the other hand SR
assumes dilation which means that the internal frequency has
to decrease. This was seen as a logical conflict which kept de
Broglie (in his own words) busy for some lengthy time. Then in
his view he found a solution which was the introduction of a
new wave, just the de Broglie wave.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The problem with de Broglie is that he misunderstood the
situation. He was right in that the internal oscillation slows
down by dilation (if seen e.g. from the side). However if the
particle interacts with another particle being in a different
motion state (for instance at rest) then this other particle
sees a higher frequency caused by the Doppler effect. And the
Doppler effect is about the inverse square of dilation, so the
apparent frequency is increased according to the energy
equation. And there is no problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>It is not even necessary to refer to the Doppler effect in
this case. If the Lorentz transformation is properly used then
it indicates an increase of the frequency rather a decrease.
So it encloses already the implication of the Doppler effect:
The according Lorentz transformation says about the speed of
proper time: dt' = gamma*(dt-vx/c<sup>2</sup>). So, if in the
simple case the interacted particle is at rest and so v=0,
then because gamma>1 t' will run faster than t . No de
Broglie wave is needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The other point: there are some considerations here about the
energy / mass of the electron where the energy is always
related to the electric (or "electromagnetic") properties of
the electron. This cannot work. Helmut Hönl has in the 1940s
attempted to deduce the mass of the electron from its
electrical energy. The result was too small by a factor of
about 300. (And this is BTW the relation between the strong
and the electrical force.) As a consequence of the work of
Hönl it was concluded that it is impossible to determine the
mass of the electron classically. Conclusion was that the mass
can only be treated by quantum mechanics. - However if it is
utilized that the strong force is stronger by the given factor
and the strong force is used for the determination of mass
then the result is correct. I have done this calculation as
some of you know using the strong force and the result
conforms to the measurement with a precision of almost 10<sup>-6</sup>.
(My talk in San Diego.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>The objection to this determination is normally that the
electron is not subject to the strong force because it was
never observed to react with a particle which has the strong
force as the dominant one. But this is falsified in so far
that at the electron ring DESY in Hamburg an interaction
between electrons and quarks on the basis of the strong force
was observed around the year 2004. There was then an ad hoc
explanation introduced for this observation by the assumption
of a new exchange particle mediating between electrical and
strong forces which was called "leptoquark". It was then
attempted to verify the leptoquark at the Tevatron. But
without any result. So this looks like a clear indication that
the electron is also subject to the strong force, however with
a very small coupling constant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>So, what do you think about this?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.11.2017 um 15:07 schrieb André
Michaud:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif",serif">Hello John,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif",serif">Ok thanks. Taking this in also. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif",serif">I will develop an opinion as I read
your articles and correlate your grounding premises with
my own angle. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif",serif">Best Regards</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">---<br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
<i>On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 04:37:50 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Actually
André I take it back,<br>
<br>
If you look at the post I sent to Chip I've argued
that one needs to consider five superimposed spaces:
space, flow in space, electric field, magnetic field
and spin, but I am forgetting myself and warnings from
Carver Mead not to double-count. While this is true,
these spaces are, indeed coupled by linear
differential equations: this means that the odd may be
taken to depend on the even and vice-versa, meaning
that only three can be dynamically independent. They
are all anyway coupled and interdependent though the
extended theory of 4D space-time, if it is indeed the
solution to Hilbert's sixth that is.<br>
<br>
Regards, John. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF118328">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Williamson [<a
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
moz-do-not-send="true">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 10, 2017 4:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>; <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de
Broglie wavelength</span><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hello
André,<br>
<br>
This is getting more and more interesting! Not
promising to look at them straight away as I've
lots to do today but will save them as a treat
for later.<br>
<br>
I agree that the magnetic field encompasses some
aspects of spin in that is a kind of "turning
thing", but I think one eventually needs both!<br>
<br>
Regards, John. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF346207">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
André Michaud [<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 09, 2017
11:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson; <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [General] Compton and de
Broglie wavelength</span><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">Hello John,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">Just one last
comment with regard to what we put on the
table.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">I just quickly
scanned your 3 papers and listened to your
talk.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">We may
effectively have a direct match
space-wise, because in the trispatial
geometry, your magnetic space and your
spin space are one and the same.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">You'll see why
when you read about how spin can be
related to the expansion-regression
process of the magnetic component during
the EM reciprocal swing.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif">Best Regards</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">André
Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:49:23 -0500,
André Michaud wrote:</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<i>On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:33:42 +0000, John
Williamson wrote:</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Right-ho
André, I will go green ... <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman , serif",serif;color:purple">Ok,
I'll go violet (colors getting drowded)</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center" width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF636588">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
André Michaud [<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 09,
2017 4:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson; <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [General]
Compton and de Broglie wavelength</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi
John<br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">I'll
go red inline for my answers.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<i>On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 10:26:38
+0000, John Williamson wrote:</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Hello
Andre and Grahame,<br>
<br>
Sorry Andre, have not looked at
the trispatial stuff, have been
far too busy with the day job
for the last few weeks. Sounds
interesting though. Could you
please point me to the
references again (apologies if
you have already given them). I
will go blue below.<br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red">No
sweat. I also work a day job so
I also indulge when time allows.
I'll give the links in context
below for consistency. </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:green">Tough
stuff, but all fun huh?</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:purple">Indeed!</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center"
width="100%"></div>
<div id="divRpF736765">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of André Michaud [<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org" moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday,
November 07, 2017 9:24 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a>;
<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[General] Compton and de
Broglie wavelength</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA">Hi
Grahame,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA">The 3D
perspective doesn't rule
out at all the de Broglie
wavelength. Quite the
contrary. To my knowledge,
the de Broglie wavelength
is the only way to account
for the energy of the
electron in motion in the
4D space geometry. The
reason is that the
self-staining mutual
induction of the electric
and magnetic fields of the
energy making up the
invariant rest mass of the
electron cannot be
described in a 4D
spacetime geometry. At
least, it never was.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"
lang="EN-CA">Yes this can
be done now. One needs to
build in a (root) rest
mass to the basis of the
field (Maxwell) equations.
There is an example of
this in my my two 2015
SPIE papers, though there
is a flaw in the
underlying handedness of
one of the fields in that
theory, the basic method
is still valid.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA">It can
be described however in
the trispatial geometry,
and so can that of its
carrying energy
separately, that is the
energy that causes the
electron to move and also
accounts for its velocity
related transverse
relativistic mass
increment.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"
lang="EN-CA">This sounds
very interesting. There is
a sense in which my new
theory is quadri-spatial.
I wonder if there is some
common ground here? I
really need to look at
your stuff. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="color:red">Quite
possibly, I have not had a
look at your material, but
obviously we are exploring
the same issues.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">Indeed,
from what you say below
these may be EXACTLY the
same issues.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA">What I
wrote was that the de
Broglie wavelength that
combines both is not valid
in the trispatial
geometry, and is replaced
by a resonance effect
between the energy of the
invariant rest mass of the
electron and that of its
separately definable
carrying energy. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"
lang="EN-CA">Sounds as
though you need a wave
defining these two.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="color:red">Exactly
right! And I have no idea
of how to go about this,
because while the
wavelength of the rest
mass of the electron
remains fixed at the
Compton wavelength value,
that of its carrying
energy varies with
velocity while the
electron is accelerating,
which causes the combined
resonance volume to vary
with increasing velocity,
so the resonance volume
fluctuates as a function
of time. In the trispatial
geometry I tentatively
associate Zitterbewegung
to this resonance effect.
</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">I
think you are very close.
In my model the Compton
frequency is fundamental,
but double-covering, which
givesthe zitterbewegung
frequency. If you do the
relativstic
transformations correctly,
the de Broglie wavelength
falls out of this
beautifully, as Martin
first derived in 1991 (or
maybe 92 - do you remember
Martin?). Martn is also
working a=on an updated
and definitive paper on
this at the moment.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif" lang="EN-CA">You are
right tough, there is an
orthogonal factor involved
between the electric
charges of the carrying
energy and that of the
electron. But
unfortunately, I don't
know how to explain this
from the 4D perspective. I
don't think it can be.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"
lang="EN-CA">In my theory
the mass and fields go in
as an initially neutral
fluid. Charge is derived
as a result of new
topological solutions
allowed by the extended
Maxwell equations. The
theory is 4D from the
beginning. Both the de
Broglie wavelength and the
proper transformations of
energy-momentum, both for
the case of photons and
material particles may be
(are!) derived.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:red">Wow!
In the trispatial
geometry, what you call a
"neutral fluid", I
identify as fundamental
"kinetic energy" as
induced in charges by the
Coulomb force, coupled
with the fields concept
being seen as only sorts
of "maps" describing the
real territory (the
behavior of the energy),
so there really seems to
be common grounds between
both our angles on these
issues. I put this in
perspective in the long
but I think required
setting-in-perspective at
the beginning of the de
Broglie double-particle
photon paper:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:green">As
I have said to others -
there are good features in
the double particle
picture, but this is
seriously challenged by
experiment. In particular
with two particles you
immediately need forces to
conbfine them. these
forces and particles would
show up in the scattering
cross sections and they do
not. This was a good idea
of de Broglies, but I fear
it is ultimately a dead
end as it falls foul of a
large body of experimental
evidence.</span><span
style="color:purple"><br>
<br>
In the double-particle
picture of the trispatial
geometry, there is a
self-sustaining
reciprocating swing
between double component
electric state and single
component magnetic state,
with the recall property
being due to the Coulomb
Force acting from the
trispatial junction. This
is how the
self-maintaining swing is
explained in the spatial
geometry, combined with a
property of the
"substance" kinetic-energy
to constantly remain in
motion.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">I
don't think the twin
"particles" would show up
so much with respect to
the frontal cross-section,
because in the trispatial
model, the max transverse
amplitude of the electric
swing is only (alpha
lambda)/(2 pi), and they
cannot really be
"particles" in the sense
of separate quanta such as
electrons for example. In
this geometry, they are
part of a single
incompressible quantum
that elastically
oscillates.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><a
href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf</a><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">For
the related electron and
the up and down quarks
inner structures I also
add the links to the two
paper that describe the
related mechanics of their
establishment in the
trispatial geometry if you
want to have a look:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">The
Mechanics of
Electron-Positron Pair
Creation in the 3-Spaces
Model:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><a
href="http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf</a><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">The
Mechanics of Neutron and
Proton Creation in the
3-Spaces Model:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a
href="http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf</a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="color:red">The
charges in the trispatial
model are a "recall
effect" towards the
trispatial junction, and
their intensity is related
to the distance at which
opposite "charges" happen
to momentarily be on
either side of the
junction. Stabilized for
the electron and positron,
but varying for the
photon. Not explainable in
4D geometry, but
summarized in the first
column of page 6 of this
other paper in the
3-spaces geometry with
summary description of the
3-spaces geometry:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:green">This
sounds to me as though it
has some similarities to
my concept, not of the
electron, but of the
quarks as composed of
underlying electromagnetic
like interactions.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><a
href="https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf</a><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="color:red">It would
indeed be interesting if
all of this could be
described from the more
easily dealt with 4D
geometry as you seem to
have been exploring. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="color:red">I know
that ideas like
"trispatial geometry" and
"3-spaces" sound overly
exotic, but they really
are not. Simply an
expansion of the concept
of the magnetic field vs
electric field vectorial
cross product giving the
related triply orthogonal
electromagnetic relation
between electric aspect,
magnetic aspect, and
direction of motion of any
point of Maxwell's
spherically expanding
electromagnetic wavefront
in plane wave treatment,
being applied to the point
source of the wave, which
allows the emitted quantum
to remain localized as it
starts moving at c from
the point of emission,
which would explain EM
photons' permanent
localization.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:green">I
agree completely, and two
of my "3D space are indeed
the three of electric and
the three of magnetic
(properly the six of
electromagnetic,
relativistically of
course). My other two are
the three of mass-current
and the three of spin. I
also agree about the
localisation.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="color:purple">We
seem to really wading in
the same waters then.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-CA">In short, the
de Broglie wavelength in
4D spacetime geometry is a
valid, but more general
representation of the
combined resonance effect
of both the electron
energy and its carrying
energy in the 3-spaces
geometry.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue"
lang="EN-CA">As Grahame
mentioned, Martin van der
Mark derived this
independently from our
rotating photon model in
1991, see the comment
below.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="color:red">Would
you have a link to this
paper by Martin?</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">This
is Martin and my 1997
paper on the localised
photon and is available
here:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><cite><span
style="color:green"><a
href="http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</a></span></cite><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">There
is also a talk of mine on
there somewhere, with my
model for the quarks.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">The
SPIE papers are available
under my name on the
Glasgow university
website.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><cite><span
style="color:green">eprints.gla.ac.uk/110966/
and </span></cite><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><cite><span
style="color:green">eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf</span></cite><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">Ok,
Il have a look at your
material and Martin's.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">Maybe
we should wait until we
both have had time to look
at the others stuff before
trying to correlate ideas
more closely.<br>
We are nearing exhaustion
of the usable color range.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="color:purple">Best
Regards<br>
<br>
André</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:red">This
definitely looks like a
quite exciting
conversation.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:green">Agreed!</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">Best
Regards</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">André
Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a
href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Tue, 7 Nov 2017
19:49:07 -0000, "Dr
Grahame Blackwell"
wrote:</i><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Hi
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">André,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">I
don'tunderstand 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.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue">No
this is not so - Martin
derived the harmony of
phases from this
independently in around
1991. It was pointed out
to us in 1994 by Ulrich
Enz ( on circulating in
Philips a second attempt
to publish that paper)
that the Harmony of phases
had first been described
by de Broglie in his
thesis.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best
regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-----
Original Message -----<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
navy 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:#E4E4E4"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
target="_blank"
title="srp2@srpinc.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">André
Michaud</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <a
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
title="richgauthier@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>
; <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
Tuesday, November 07,
2017 3:45 PM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> Re:
[General] The Entangled
Double-Helix
Superluminal Photon
Model<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi
Richard,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Best Regards<br>
---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a
href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Tue, 7 Nov 2017
06:25:31 -0800,
Richard Gauthier
wrote:</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">HelloAndréand all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">with warm regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22
PM, André Michaud
<<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi
Richard,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
would qualify the last
part as "<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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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>
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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a
href="http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf</a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best
Regards</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a
href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Mon, 6 Nov 2017
15:08:43 -0800,
Richard Gauthier
wrote:</i> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi André,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37
AM, André
Michaud <<a
href="mailto:srp2@srpinc.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">srp2@srpinc.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi
Richard,</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
have been reading your
last paper:</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant</a></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Quite
interesting and
clearly described.
Easy to visualize.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
have no comment on
entanglement.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">To
your possible
criticism No. 1)
regarding the
superluminal velocity.
I agree that this is a
problem.</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">You
put in the possible
criticism list the
idea No. 2) the photon
may be composite. </span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
would add two items to
your list of possible
criticism</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">8)
How does the photon
maintain its light
velocity?</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;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
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Best
Regards</span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
André Michaud<br>
GSJournal admin<br>
<a
href="http://www.gsjournal.net/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.gsjournal.net/</a><br>
<a
href="http://www.srpinc.org/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.srpinc.org/</a><br>
<br>
<i>On Tue, 31 Oct 2017
19:23:45 -0700,
Richard Gauthier
wrote:</i><br>
<br>
Forwarded from Chip <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Begin forwarded
message:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">From: </span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Chip Akins" <<a
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">chipakins@gmail.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject: [General]
Relativity</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Date: </span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">October 31, 2017 at
6:46:19 AM PDT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To: </span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"'Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion'"
<<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Reply-To: </span></b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Nature of Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion <<a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Hi Grahame (and Andre)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Regarding logical self-consistent issues…<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in
space.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct
a set of
conditions,
which is
causal, and
yields results
which match
observation.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">So there is a more logically consistent, causal
view, than the
one proposed
by SR.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">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></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Are there ways to present this and related
information
which better
illustrates
the case from
a logical
basis?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">_______________________________________________</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span
style="background:white">If
you no longer
wish to
receive
communication
from the
Nature of
Light and
Particles
General
Discussion
List at</span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple;background:white">richgauthier@gmail.com</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span
style="background:white"><a
href="</span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:purple;background:white">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;background:white">"></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br>
<span
style="background:white">Click
here to
unsubscribe</span><br>
<span
style="background:white"></a></span></span><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center">
<hr size="2" align="center"
width="100%"></div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to
receive communication from
the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion
List at <a
href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a href=<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>