<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have a problem to understand your equations in one point. You
are using alpha in the formula for stable orbits in an atom.
However alpha was introduced by Sommerfeld to explain the fine
structure in some spectra. That is in my understanding very
different from your use. Why do you have it?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>A more recent understanding sees alpha as the relation between
the electrical and the strong force. Is this the basis for your
equations?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.11.2017 um 23:24 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:073601d35c04$f35c3f90$da14beb0$@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 \,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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.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">Sorry I made an error in the email below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This version has been corrected.<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">
Chip Akins [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">mailto:chipakins@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 12, 2017 4:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
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 class="MsoNormal">Hi Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes. The alpha I used is the fine
structure constant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I noticed that the equations I sent did not
show up correctly in the email when returned. The divisions
were missing. Copied and corrected below…<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"><i>λm = n c/2α f</i>Ze<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<i> λ</i>db <i>= h / m v =
4c/2α f</i>Ze. 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"><i>λ</i>db <i>= 4n c/2α f</i>Ze<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">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
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 12, 2017 3:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria
Math",serif">λm=n c2α f</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Ze</span><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<i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif"> λ</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">db<i>=hm
v =4c2α f</i>Ze</span>. 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"><i><span style="font-family:"Cambria
Math",serif">λ</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">db<i>=4n
c2α f</i>Ze</span><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
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
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>
<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",serif">Hello John,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif ,serif",serif">Ok thanks. Taking this in
also. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif ,serif",serif">I will develop an opinion as
I read your articles and correlate your grounding
premises with my own angle. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif ,serif",serif">Best Regards</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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. </span><o:p></o:p></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. </span><o:p></o:p></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>Hello John,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Just one last comment with regard to what
we put on the table.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I just quickly scanned your 3 papers and
listened to your talk.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best Regards<span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
---</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Right-ho
André, I will go green ... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Ok, I'll go violet (colors getting
drowded)<o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="color:purple">The
Mechanics of
Electron-Positron Pair
Creation in the 3-Spaces
Model:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="color:purple">The
Mechanics of Neutron and
Proton Creation in the
3-Spaces Model:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="color:purple">Ok,
Il have a look at your
material and Martin's.</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="color:purple">Best
Regards<br>
<br>
André</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:10.0pt"><span
style="color:red">This
definitely looks like a
quite exciting
conversation.</span><o:p></o:p></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>
---</span><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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>
---</span><o:p></o:p></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> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">HelloAndréand all,</span><o:p></o:p></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>.</span><o:p></o:p></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>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">with warm regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Richard</span><o:p></o:p></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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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>
---</span><o:p></o:p></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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Hi André,</span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Richard</span><o:p></o:p></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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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>
---</span><o:p></o:p></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
</span><o:p></o:p></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:</span><o:p></o:p></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>></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Subject: [General]
Relativity</span></b><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></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>></span><o:p></o:p></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>></span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>