<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Viv,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for the link to your website.</div><div><br></div><div>Your introductions to chapters 1 & 2 are close enough to my views that I can send them (via the link) to interested people instead of trying to write an explanation myself.</div><div><br></div><div>In your Brief Summary (of Chap 5), you mention a nuclear "skin" effect. Do you explain what you mean in detail in the chapter? I am proposing something similar
to account for the "negative" energy levels in
Dirac's
relativistic bound-electron model for which a filled electron sea has been proposed. If so, I might be able to reference your book.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:38 AM Viv Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div style="margin:0px"><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Dear Chandra, Grahame, Richard, Albrecht and all,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Chandra it is pleasing to see you still hosting this "Nature of light and particles" address. Early on the activity and ideas were freely flowing. A lot of us dropped out because the messages seemed not to be related to reality as non detected particles were introduced to explain some “problems in modern science”. These included rotars, hods, tachyons/super luminal particles, microvita, and now sprinq univons. To me they seem like “string theory”. It uses particles too small to ever be detected existing in dimensions that have never been detected to get results that don’t match observation. In other words, out of touch in a 3 D universe.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Richard, I agree with you that cosmologists don’t have a clue about what happened before the Big Bang and not much of a clue in the inflationary period. Grahame, I agree with you that every aspect of the universe is controlled. The Big Question is “How and by what”? This is not the time or place to give a complete answer. So Grahame, at your request for something thought-provoking, I offer the following. Throughout what I describe I have used the principle of "know the physical situation involved and use mathematics to calculate the magnitude of that physical effect". I use only known physical constants like e, c, h and G, and others derived from them and known and detected stable particles, photons, electrons, protons, neutrons and neutrinos. I used variations of the Williamson/van der Mark electron model for all particles being composed of toroidal or, as I call it, rotating photons. My philosophy includes particles create fields. Understand the particle properties well enough and you can get answers without needing field equations. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">I would like to acknowledge that I have been in frequent contact with John Williamson and Martin van der Mark (JW&MvdM) over the past decade and have benefited from the knowledge they passed on to me.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">It is my hypothesis that all matter is composed of rotation photons. The best experimental proof of that comes from the Large Hadron Collider and other particle accelerators. Charged particles are injected into an accelerator and accelerated by the addition of photons. They are accelerated to high velocities, enough to increase their mass by many orders of magnitude and slow down their Internal “clock”, relative to observers. When they are smashed into targets they generate a variety of short lived particles, all of which, when everything has died down, decay into electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos and photons. Nothing else stable has ever been detected. The most obvious reason for that is that nothing else exists. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px"><span style="font-size:12.7273px">Using a model for photons, I suggest that all particles are composed of photons making two revolutions within their wavelength, the JW&MvdM model, also developed by others. Charged particles, protons / electrons, are composed of circularly polarized photons. Neutral particles, neutron and neutrino, a composed of plane polarized photons. Einstein’s special relativity corrections are an automatic consequence of how those particles move, as are their de Broglie wavelengths. Another SR correction is that the radius of a </span>rotating<span style="font-size:12.7273px"> photon structure decreases with velocity according to the standard SR </span>correction. That is why an electron is detected as a point particle at high energy but behaves like a particle with Compton radius dimensions at low velocity.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">I get a reasonable match of the charge distribution and magnetic moment of the proton and neutron based only on that model and their masses. The “intrinsic spin” difference between photons and neutrons is the hbar difference between the circularly polarized and plane polarized photons from which they are composed. The array of elementary particles detected comes from the increased velocity adding mass and slowing down time when accelerated. When they are stopped, their mass and time (their frequency of rotation) are "out of synch” with their new time frame. They get rid of the excess be emitting a series of photons, both rotating and linear. The rotating photons are particles. They and the original particles cascade through a series of quasi stable oscillations until they reach their stable state. Muons and pions are so prevalent because they are part of the structure of nucleons at rest. All others are relative transients.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The structure of protons and neutrons provides the means by which they bind. With a set of simple rules it is possible to put together a model of any nucleus of any A and Z and determine its structure and many of its properties. It answers many unknowns such as why do nuclei have such a large “skin effect”, why does He4 have the highest charge density of any nucleus, while it near neighbor has the lowest of any with higher Z, why are C12 nuclei triangular shaped, why is Pb208 (or Bi209, if you want), the highest A and Z stable nuclei, why there are so many isotopes, which ones are the more stable, along with the mechanism of nuclear binding and a whole lot more. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The quantized origins of electron orbits and some of the “peculiar” quantum behavior are simply properties of the rotating photon structures. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Having described the structure and properties of nuclear and atomic/molecular binding worlds, standard model classical physics gives a good description of most phenomena up to galaxies and galaxy clusters, their rotation and some general relativity gravitational effects excluded. I found that applying Newtons work to photons, which Einstein acknowledged had mass, the effects calculable by his field equations can be easily calculated. I get 42.99 arc sec per century for Mercury’s perihelion precession. What I find amusing is that "general relativity practitioners” either haven’t read or don’t understand Einstein’s derivation of his field equations. A read through his papers show he pointed out the limitations to his calculations and acknowledged that his field equations were approximations. Exact solutions to approximations are still approximations. That doesn’t stop relativists from believing in black holes when Einstein didn’t believe in them. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The physics behind Einstein’s gravity was the mass distorted space-time, producing gravity. It differs from Newton’s inverse square law by the space-time distortion of redshift, z, to photons. Classical gravity is F = GMm/r^2. “Relativistic" gravity can be expressed by F = GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2. That is what gives Mercury its anomalous precession, which when viewed from Earth is ≈ 42.99 arc sec/century. It is easy to show that photons traveling through the universe will undergo a gravitational redshift when they have travelled far enough. The observed redshift astronomers closely see matches this gravitational redshift. The important feature is that gravity is weaker than inverse square when redshift is detectable. It is easy to show that, as distance tends to infinity, gravitational attraction tends to zero. An infinite steady state universe won’t collapse. The major feature the Big Bang theory had in its favor was the belief by Einstein and others that gravity remained inverse square. When it doesn’t, all the pillars of the Big Bang theory disappear and an infinite steady state universe emerges as the only option. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Richard, I suggest that is the best explanation of why cosmologists can’t agree on the pre and early Big Bang period. It is difficult to get a consensus on something that didn’t happen. Grahame, Chandra, the only reason why such an extensive study can yield good results is because everything is controlled, and by just one principle. It doesn’t need any hypothetical undetected particles, strings, branes, quarks, gluons, tachyons, superluminal or otherwise, bosons including Higgs but excluding photons, rotars, univons, dark matter, dark energy and the like to get that far.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Albrecht, I agree with your suggestion about the non acceptance of superluminal travel. In my model of circularly polarized photons, the photon travels at c in a straight line. The electromagnetic field spirals around it and therefore could be described as superluminal. But it is a mathematical point that is spiraling faster than c, not something physical. That is a minor point (pardon the pun). Standard model reviewers don’t accept anything that is not either standard model or complex <span style="font-size:12.7273px">mathematics. </span></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><div style="margin:0px">For those interested, I have put together a manuscript I have called <b>How to Build a Universe</b> Beyond the Standard Models. Details can be found at:-</div><div style="margin:0px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px"><a href="http://www.universephysics.com/" style="word-break:break-word" target="_blank">www.universephysics.com</a></div><div style="margin:0px"><br></div><div style="margin:0px">(Grahame, I don’t have your web site presentation skills.)</div></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The work remains largely unpublished in mainstream or other journals. I got tired of Reviewer comments that essentially say “It is not standard model, so we won’t publish it”! However it makes dozens of predictions that can be tested experimentally (in nuclear, particle and atomic levels) or by observation (at astronomy and cosmology levels). Neither is the study complete. I rely on John W for some equations and have welcomed and acknowledged his input. I understand many other physicists have similar views and are working on similar lines.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">IMHO, we don’t live in a universe that is fine tuned for life to exist. We live in one that is inherently stable, where h, G and e can’t have any different values and c varies between observers but is always fixed for local observers. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">John W is organizing a Workshop and Conference for later this year where it is hoped a group of like minded people would gather to present ideas and papers founded on three space dimensions and time and using only observed particles. It is hoped the occasion would enable the group to "advance the cause” of understanding the “perpetually evolving universe”. If you are interested in attending/presenting, you might like to contact him for further information. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Cheers,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px"><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Vivian Robinson</div><br style="font-family:"helvetica Neue",helvetica;font-size:13.6364px"><div style="font-family:"helvetica Neue",helvetica;font-size:13.6364px"></div></div> <br> <div></div> <br><p>On 10 January 2020 at 3:01:42 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra (<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite"><span><div dir="auto"><div></div><div>
Grahame:
<div>Keep up the good work!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> No human knowledge is the final
knowledge. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Our Enquiry about the rules, the meanings and the purposes
behind the perpetually evolving universe, must keep evolving. That
is the only “assurance” in our thinking should be accepted.</div>
<div>Chandra.<br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Dr Grahame
Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Dear
All,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Thanks, Richard,
for highlighting a fundamental truism that's central to our work:
either our universe is a product of focused intention, or it's
random. If the latter is true then we may as well all stop
bothering with our research - or anything else, for that matter:
any illusion that we may have that our work, or any of our
activities, are leading in some postive direction, or that we are
in any way masters of our own destiny, is just that - illusion; our
own beings, along with every other aspect of the cosmos, are just
random assemblages of matter/energy following train-tracks
determined by randomly-generated 'rules', supplemented by further
randomness at a quantum level. Anyone who thinks that we have
even the slightest hint of self-determination in such circumstances
is just kidding themselves: the idea that self-determination could
ever be an emergent property of pure randomness is a pipe-dream,
one that collapses at the first hint of objective
analysis.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">The notion of pure
randomness generating a cosmos with constants finely-tuned to
support all the phenomena that we see around (and within) us also
of course necessitates the notion of an infinity of cosmoi, with an
infinity of different combinations of fundamental constants.
I never cease to be baffled by the view that this is a scientific
perspective whilst the concept of an intentional universe is
somehow woo-woo or fanciful.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Let's be clear,
the idea of an intentional universe is not in any way less credible
than that of an infinite number of universes - as I'm sure William
of Ockham would agree. It's definitely not in any way a
'religious' concept - rather, the 'infinity of random
universes' is surely a prime contender for the title of 'religious
belief'.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Planck,
Schr<span><font color="#000000">ö</font></span>dinger and other pioneers of Quantum
Mechanics had no doubts that consciousness is a founding principle
and an active agency underlying the material world. As my own
speculative contribution to this narrative, I have written a
trilogy of science fiction novels based on a scientific perspective
on Relativity that I know various others in this group
subscribe to, extended into the field of what I refer to as
'Consciousness Science'. This trilogy posits the idea that
the fallacy of c as an absolute speed limit might be challenged by
adding 'applied consciousness' into the mix - and points to various
well-established phenomena as support for that idea.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Colleagues may be
interested to see how my trilogy first finds a means to
implement FTL travel and then goes on to use that means to explore
and colonise stars tens of light years away (in time scales
measured in months - reduced to hours for the travellers by
well-explained time dilation effects). A major purpose of
this series of books is to provoke discussion, and deeper thought,
about this whole issue - including the potential for, and possible
nature of, life on exoplanets (stretching the boundaries on the
basis of documented scientific facts).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Details of my
books can be seen at:</font></div>
<div><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaikandor.com&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248697778&sdata=XoYBffiKTsH6UY%2B7eSkijSPG5Hz7RZ9rkPHyB7Hp71U%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">
<font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">www.vaikandor.com</font></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">I hope some of you
at least find the topic thought-provoking.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">=======</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>----- Original Message -----</div>
<blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(0,0,128);padding-left:5px;padding-right:0px;margin-left:5px;margin-right:0px">
<div style="font:10pt arial;background:rgb(228,228,228) none repeat scroll 0% 0%">
<b>From:</b> <a title="richgauthier@gmail.com" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">Richard Gauthier</a></div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">Nature of
Light and Particles - General Discussion</a></div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 07,
2020 11:22 PM</div>
<div style="font:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] new
particle -- the univon</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><span>Hello all, </span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span> Here's the title and abstract that
I just submitted for a talk at the American Physical Society's next
annual April meeting. </span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span> Title: Superluminal Primordial
Information Quanta (Sprinqs) Created and Compose a Multiverse of
Equally Fine-Tuned Universes Evolving Life and Highly-Developed
Minds </span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span> Abstract: A proposed univon
particle or cosmic quantum, composed of a circulating superluminal
primordial information quantum (sprinq), created our
u</span><span>niverse and many others
as a multiverse of equally “fine-tuned” universes. Their
fundamental particle masses, forces, and other fundamental
parameters are “just right” to evolve stable galaxies, stars,
advanced life-forms and developed minds. Based on previous electron
and photon models, sprinqs also compose the fundamental particles
in our universe and other universes by moving superluminally in
different ways to express different particle attributes. The univon
is the quantum particle of a proposed univon quantum field. If
other universes are detected having “un-tuned” values of their
constants and thus without stable stars and higher life forms, this
would suggest that all universes emerge by following purely
physical laws. Our fine-tuned inhabitable universe would then just
be an extremely improbable universe. However, observational
evidence for a fine-tuned multiverse would support the hypothesis
of a cosmic intelligence creating and maintaining our multiverse in
a natural way. </span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span> Questions or
comments? </span></div>
<div><span> Richard</span></div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Nov 26, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Richard Gauthier <<a href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com" target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi all,</div>
<div> Here's an article about a proposed new
particle -- the univon -- that produced our universe and other
similarly "fine-tuned" universes in a multiverse.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2Fattachments%2F61344179%2Fdownload_file%3Fs%3Dportfolio&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248707772&sdata=0p4oauP0XmMjsts2ltG1yyvPb6nT8IOfZjK1bBDaKmk%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank"><font color="#0066CC">Univon Particle Created Our
Universe and Many Others</font></a></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>best wishes,</div>
<div>
Richard</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a></span><br>
<span><a
href="<a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fchandra.roychoudhuri%2540uconn.edu%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248737757&sdata=j3Nqg55xFaHnI3gECO5fQBAlhhm3lNtv6hiw4XX2bNE%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank">https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.natureoflightandparticles.org%2Foptions.cgi%2Fgeneral-natureoflightandparticles.org%2Fchandra.roychoudhuri%2540uconn.edu%3Funsub%3D1%26unsubconfirm%3D1&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248737757&sdata=j3Nqg55xFaHnI3gECO5fQBAlhhm3lNtv6hiw4XX2bNE%3D&reserved=0</a>"></span><br>
<span>Click here to unsubscribe</span><br>
<span></a></span><br></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________
<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>
<br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>">
<br>Click here to unsubscribe
<br></a>
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</blockquote></div>