<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Wolf,<br>
<br>
</p>
<p>I think that I can understand both, Lorentz and Einstein. Lorentz
has followed the classical physics like Newton and Maxwell. He
wished to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment and he found
that the results of Maxwell together with an assumption about
matter, which seemed plausible to him, provided a classical
explanation. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Einstein did not follow Lorentz. Why not? I see three reasons.
Firstly, the assumption about matter (as built by molecules and
bound by electrical fields) seemed implausible and not serious
physics at that time (but was found to be true around 1916). And
secondly it was a consequence of his education in a school which
related to ancient Greek philosophers (like Plato). In this school
the thinking of those philosophers was understood to be more
spiritual and so at a higher level. Einstein hated this school and
he left it early, but he was already infected. (I was in the same
type of school and I know this spirit.) The use of a principle
rather physical laws was taken as the dominance of Plato over
Newton, and it did have a higher ranking. A third reason was also
Einstein's relation to philosophy. He followed the positivism.
Positivism says that we anyway cannot "understand" the world but
can only describe it. And that included that there must be no
unobservable phenomena in a theory. The approach of Lorentz needed
an ether and that was not observable. - Later Einstein rejected
this thinking and he should have redeveloped relativity. But
unfortunately he did not.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>What about space? In the view of Lorentz the space is essentially
emptiness, it has no properties. But it can of course be filled
with something. In the view of Einstein the space has properties
(for instance can change its shape, can be the origin of fields).
- You want to combine both concepts. How can this work? I have no
idea. You do?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But in general: space has in my view nothing to do with
coordinate systems. As said earlier: a coordinate system is a
mathematical concept which helps us for some determinations. It is
no physics. To say it in a different way: a particle reacts with a
field. A particle "has no idea" what a coordinate is. The only
physical phenomenon in this sense is a "distance". As it (beside
others) causes the strength of a field. But not a coordinate.
Maybe we should eliminate the word "coordinate" from our
discussion.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 22.01.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Wolfgang
Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1f98bc5d-830c-559a-29f4-197ed7cdc371@nascentinc.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Albrecht</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You constantly talk of physicists not accepting earlier
concepts of fields and matter. Do you not think that politics
could have had a lot to do with it?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Of course this is fits my fundamental belief that the physics
of the observer is as important in science and has been
neglected.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>When comparing Einstein and Lorenz I believe it is not an
either or, but rather a synthesis of both that will lead us in
the right direction. Lorenz's view that contraction and dilation
is a general property of fields in a fixed background space
makes sense to me. But Einstein's view that space is defined by
the coordinate frame is also true. <br>
</p>
<p>The synthesis of the two is that space and time is a personal
sensation defined by the coordinate frame we all look through to
interact with the world so the background space has always been
the mental display space, which prior to Einstain was assumed
to be an independent objective reality.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps we should follow the synthesis route and not argue abou
who is right or wrong but see there are many contributors to
progress</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Wolf <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/21/2018 4:26 AM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5b2411b4-867e-743d-023b-be4c909ae848@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<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"
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> Monday, January 08, 2018 2:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
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<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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>
<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:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>