<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Chip,</p>
<p>thank you for your answer and for the attached paper. I respond
to your answers in the text below.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Your paper is a very long one. So it will take me some time to
read it. At present I am in preparation for a conference, so I ask
you for some patience. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But when I look into your introduction, you say that <b>modern
physics (here </b><b>relativity</b><b>) has changed our view of
space and tim</b>e. You say that the three-dimensional Euclidean
space was replaced by the four-dimensional space time.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>This latter is true if you follow Einstein which respect to his
interpretation of relativity. But looking into history: are you
aware that some time before Einstein (about 15 years) Hendrik
Lorentz, Joseph Larmor, and others have already developed a theory
of <b>special relativity</b>? And their theory continued to use
the Euclidean space of 3 dimensions. We know that their approach
was not accepted by Einstein nor by the other physicists at that
time. The reason was that Lorentz and the others have made
assumptions about the structure of solid matter and of elementary
particles. That was not the view of physics at that time and so
seemed to be not a serious approach. However, these physicists
(Lorentz at al.) have been ahead of their time. 11 years, after
Einstein published special relativity, the assumptions of Lorentz
about matter became the general understanding, And about 20 (or
25) years after Einstein their assumptions about particles physics
became main stream. So, if Einstein would have waited a few years
more before developing relativity he would not have seen the need
for his assumptions about space-time. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So, my idea is to go back to Lorentz and the others as their
fundamental assumptions are now the main stream understanding. Why
should we make physics (and here relativity) more complicated as
it is.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 08.01.2018 um 23:56 schrieb Chip
Akins:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \, serif \,serif";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{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 email.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see comments embedded below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmest Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 08, 2018 2:07 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 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
18.11.2017 um 23:21 schrieb Chip Akins:</span><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">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">I think you are
correct in the assumption that electrons are bound to atoms
by the force of charge. My belief is that the force of
charge is actually caused by the strong force and there is
some compelling argument in favor of this. A more complete
explanation for my thoughts on this and other items is
included in the attached. Electric charge is discussed
beginning on page 18 (but addressed in many places in
various ways.) Hopefully this paper will explain why I
think charge is caused by the strong force.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">Does that mean that the electrical charge and the
strong force are the same on your view? Or related in some way?
One can compare the electrical forces in the nucleus and the
strong forces there and they are clearly different. The stability
of a nucleus depends on the relation of both. How do you explain that?<br>
<br>
I had a look into your paper regarding the electrical charge. I
understand that you deduce a general force from energy. Here I
think that you are putting things upside down. I think that forces
are fundamental, and energy is the consequence of the existence of
forces, not the other way around. one can say it even stronger:
Energy is a human concept to describe specific reactions in
physical processes in a convenient way. We should remember: before
the "conservation of energy" was detected in thermodynamic
processes, no one had the idea to use the term "energy". But in
these processes it turned out to be practical for the
determination of processes. To make a stronger statement: one
could doubt that the physical nature "knows" what energy is.<br>
<br>
Another point here: you have a long chapter to say what the
magnetic force is in contrast to the electric force. Since we have
detected relativity, we know that magnetism in nothing different
than electricity. It is only a specific view onto an electrical
process under the consideration of special relativity. One could
say: as soon as we think about fundamental physical processes and
not about technical processes, it would be better not to use the
notion of magnetism in any way but to refer to the originating
electrical field.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Again the
same question: how does the influence of the strong force
can enter here physically?</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">Same answer as
above.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">I think that it is clearly proven that both forces
are different. See above.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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...<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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 α*c/n?</span><br>
<span style="color:#002060">Regarding the last part of this
question </span>“why is the velocity of the electron
proportional to α*c/n?” <span style="color:#002060">I think
this is a very good question, but one for which I have not
found a convincing answer yet. I think it must be related to
the interaction of the zitter frequencies of the nucleus and
the zitter of the electron which causes the orbital radius,
and therefore the velocity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">How are
these two frequencies calculated?</span><br>
<span style="color:#002060">These two frequencies
are calculated fairly simply. The radius of the orbital is
5.29177266E-11 m, (dbwl/2pi) and the radius of the electron
is 1.93079654122163E-13 m. So the velocity of the outer
radius of the electron is greater than the inner radius.
This difference in velocity causes a non-relativistic
(because the velocity is low) Doppler shift of the zitter
frequency of the electron, with one frequency higher than
the other based on the velocity difference. The difference
frequency causes a wavelength which is ¼ the de Broglie
wavelength. Note: on the side of the electron which is
outside of the orbital radius the electron the frequency
source is advancing and on the inner side the electron
frequency source is retreating due to the intrinsic spin of
the electron. So the two Doppler equations are… <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">(c+vouter/c)*zitter
and (c-vinner/c)*zitter and the wavelength
calculated is 8.31229706155041E-11 m<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">Vouter is alpha
c (Orbital radius + Electron radius)/Orbital radius.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">Vinner is alpha
c (Orbital radius - Electron radius)/Orbital radius.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">Questions: <br>
o If you calculate a Doppler frequency, which is the position of
the observer who gets this frequency? Because Doppler depends on
the state of the observer.<br>
o How does the difference of two frequencies cause a wavelength?
If there is a beat frequency generated, what is the speed of the
according wave in your case?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">(Note: the
zitter frequency of the electron is Sqrt(2)c/(2pi r))
=3.49477580412838E+20Hz. An explanation for this zitter
frequency is also given in the attached.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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).<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060">I did not
calculate the de Broglie wavelength. I calculated a
wavelength of a difference frequency (beat frequency)
which turns out to be exactly ¼ the de Broglie wavelength.
Therefore there was no need to calculate phase velocity in
such a derivation. If you are still interested in why I
suggest the zitter frequency of the electron is higher
than normally assumed we can also discuss that.<br>
</span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">You are correct regarding the de Broglie wavelength.
But above you calculate again the wavelength of a frequency. What
does that mean now, which speed of the wave is assumed (as I asked
earlier above)?<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#002060"><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Again, sorry
to be so late<br>
Albrecht</span><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1">Albrecht</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:010f01d388d3$f65021c0$e2f06540$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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
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> Saturday, November 18, 2017 3:02 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] FW: Compton and de
Broglie wavelength</span><o:p></o:p></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">λm=n
c2α f</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">Ze</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where <i>n</i> = 1, 2, 3… and <i>f<sub>Ze</sub></i>
is the Zitter frequency of the electron.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course the de Broglie frequency
for this electron would then just be<i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">
λ</span></i><span style="font-family:"Cambria
Math",serif">db<i>=hm v =4c2α f</i>Ze</span>.
Where <i>f<sub>Ze</sub></i> is the Zitter frequency of
the electron:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So that the de Broglie wavelength for
the quantized orbitals are:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">λ</span></i><span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">db<i>=4n
c2α f</i>Ze</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Where <i>n</i> = 1, 2, 3…<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thought this was interesting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 10, 2017 1:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Compton and de
Broglie wavelength</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hi Colleagues!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I did not follow all details of the preceding
discussion. But I feel motivated to comment to two
points which came up here again and again. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>One point is the de Broglie wave. For this I recommend
everyone to look into the thesis of de Broglie. It is in
original in French, but there is a nice translation done
by Al Kracklauer *). And I find it easily visible that
de Broglie's idea of his wave is based on an error. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>*) <a
href="http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://aflb.ensmp.fr/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>De Broglie has meant to have detected the following
conflict: Physics assumes that there is a permanent
oscillation in a particle (like an electron) which
depends on its (full) energy according to the
equation: E = h*f , where f is the internal
frequency. Question was: what happens if the particle
is set to motion? Clearly its energy increases by the
kinetic energy. So the frequency f has to increase. On
the other hand SR assumes dilation which means that the
internal frequency has to decrease. This was seen as a
logical conflict which kept de Broglie (in his own
words) busy for some lengthy time. Then in his view he
found a solution which was the introduction of a new
wave, just the de Broglie wave.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The problem with de Broglie is that he misunderstood
the situation. He was right in that the internal
oscillation slows down by dilation (if seen e.g. from
the side). However if the particle interacts with
another particle being in a different motion state (for
instance at rest) then this other particle sees a higher
frequency caused by the Doppler effect. And the Doppler
effect is about the inverse square of dilation, so the
apparent frequency is increased according to the energy
equation. And there is no problem.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>It is not even necessary to refer to the Doppler effect
in this case. If the Lorentz transformation is properly
used then it indicates an increase of the frequency
rather a decrease. So it encloses already the
implication of the Doppler effect: The according
Lorentz transformation says about the speed of proper
time: dt' = gamma*(dt-vx/c<sup>2</sup>). So, if in the
simple case the interacted particle is at rest and so
v=0, then because gamma>1 t' will run faster than t
. No de Broglie wave is needed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The other point: there are some considerations here
about the energy / mass of the electron where the energy
is always related to the electric (or "electromagnetic")
properties of the electron. This cannot work. Helmut
Hönl has in the 1940s attempted to deduce the mass of
the electron from its electrical energy. The result was
too small by a factor of about 300. (And this is BTW the
relation between the strong and the electrical force.)
As a consequence of the work of Hönl it was concluded
that it is impossible to determine the mass of the
electron classically. Conclusion was that the mass can
only be treated by quantum mechanics. - However if it is
utilized that the strong force is stronger by the given
factor and the strong force is used for the
determination of mass then the result is correct. I have
done this calculation as some of you know using the
strong force and the result conforms to the measurement
with a precision of almost 10<sup>-6</sup>. (My talk in
San Diego.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The objection to this determination is normally that
the electron is not subject to the strong force because
it was never observed to react with a particle which has
the strong force as the dominant one. But this is
falsified in so far that at the electron ring DESY in
Hamburg an interaction between electrons and quarks on
the basis of the strong force was observed around the
year 2004. There was then an ad hoc explanation
introduced for this observation by the assumption of a
new exchange particle mediating between electrical and
strong forces which was called "leptoquark". It was then
attempted to verify the leptoquark at the Tevatron. But
without any result. So this looks like a clear
indication that the electron is also subject to the
strong force, however with a very small coupling
constant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So, what do you think about this?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 10.11.2017 um 15:07 schrieb
André Michaud:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman ,
serif ,serif",serif">Hello John,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span>Ok thanks. Taking this in also. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span>I will develop an opinion as I read your
articles and correlate your grounding premises with
my own angle. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
</span>Best Regards<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>