<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 am sorry that I almost forget to answer this contribution of
you which you have sent some time ago. But I should answer anyway
and I still have some questions to your explanations and your
calculations.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am 18.11.2017 um 23:21
schrieb Chip Akins:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math \,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.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle27
{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">Thank you for your comment. I am sure that
I was not very clear with the explanation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, yes the ratio of the force of
electric charge to the strong force is alpha, the fine
structure.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And yes, Somerfield did discover that the
spectral distribution of hydrogen is related to this same
constant, the fine structure.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">But this is
still an open question for me. It was always assumed (and
accepted) that the electrons in an atom are bound to the nucleus
by the electric force. So the electric bound causes the orbits of
the electrons. If there is now a change (even if a small one) of
the orbits described by alpha and on the other hand alpha is the
ratio of the electric force to the strong force, then also the
strong force has to influence the orbit. In which way would this
happen?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So it has become common to assume that the
orbitals of atoms are quantized, and a function of that
quantization is the fine structure constant, which then
naturally yields the spectral distribution we measure (for
hydrogen for example).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Again the same
question: how does the influence of the strong force can enter
here physically?</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a commonly discussed concept. The
circumference of an orbital is an integral number of de
Broglie wavelengths of an electron (with a velocity which is a
function of α*c/n) and an orbital circumference which is the
de Broglie wavelength at each of those velocities times the
same integer n. dbWL*n Where n is 1, 2, 3...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Again: how can
alpha influence the velocity here if part of it is the strong
force? And why is the velocity of the electron proportional to </font><font
size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">α*c/n?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But I found that a <i>beat frequency is
naturally created by the orbiting electron at those
velocities</i>, and the wavelength of that beat frequency is
exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. So while this
exploration did not discover a mechanism which created the de
Broglie wavelength, it did yield a harmonic of the de Broglie
wavelength which is naturally caused. I simply calculated the
inner and outer Doppler shifted frequencies of the electron
with a radius of 1.9 X 10-13m and circulating (orbiting) at
the radius 5.29177266E-11 m, and<b> </b>then took the
difference of those two frequencies. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">How are these
two frequencies calculated?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">This calculation yielded a frequency with a
wavelength of ¼ the de Broglie wavelength. I then simplified
all of the operations of the equations used to do the Doppler
calculation and arrived at the simplified equation for this
wavelength: wl = c/(2*alpha*Zitter). And then orbital
circumference is a quantized value which can be expressed as
(4n*c)/(2*alpha*Zitter).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">If you
calculate the de Broglie wavelength from the frequency you have
to use the phase speed of the de Broglie wave. This phase speed is
normally (for object velocities clearly lower than c) a large
multiple of c. Where did you determine the phase speed and where
did you use it in your calculations? - And how is Zitter
determined?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Again, sorry to
be so late<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01e201d360bb$946f7680$bd4e6380$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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> Saturday, November 18, 2017 3:02 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] FW: Compton and de Broglie
wavelength<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hi Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>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 12.11.2017 um 23:24 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">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 href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
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 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</span><o:p></o:p></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",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",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">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">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">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">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>
<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>
<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"><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>