The Reciprocal Geometry topic defined the basic geometric relationships between the various regions defined by Larson. From those relations, we have learned that space progresses linearly (translation) from the region of observation, and rotationally for the regions observed across any unit boundary. Since we observe and measure from the time-space region, I will proceed from that assumption.
The progression of the natural reference system therefore moves linearly outward in 3 dimensions from our perspective of the time-space region. Larson calls this the "progression of the natural reference system", and RS2 supports his conclusions regarding this region.
However, once we cross the unit space boundary into the time region, where atomic motions take place, we view that region as counterspace --a polar region where rotation is primary. Therefore, it progresses rotationally -- not linearly, and forms "rotational bases" as a natural consequence of that progression. Larson's "direction reversals" are no longer a natural consequence, nor is the linear vibration creating the photon a natural consequence of counterspace.
So what does manifest? All we have to do is change speed from Unity, and see what develops. Working within the time region, we must have the spatial aspect fixed at unity, so only the temporal aspect is variable. Due to the discrete unit postulate, the minimum speed is 1, and must proceed in integer steps. The next logical step is therefore a speed of 1/2 -- the temporal aspect increasing by 1 natural unit.
The result: a unit of rotating "time", which in Larson's notation would be 0-0-1. This makes the first identifiable manifestation as the positron (not the photon).
It's cosmic counterpart, a speed of 2/1 (where the temporal aspect is fixed at unity) becomes the c-positron, 0-0-(1), which is identified as the electron.
Here, again, the natural consequences of rotation space differ from Larson's original conclusions in two respects:
1) the positron is the first manifestation (Larson has the photon), and
2) the electron is a cosmic particle (Larson has it as a material particle).
The fact that the electron is actually a cosmic particle clears up much of the observed electron behavior, particularly its photon-like wave/particle duality. More on this once further foundations have been layed.
Positrons and Electrons
Positrons and Electrons
Every dogma has its day...
Charge on Electrons
Electrons and positrons come in two "flavors", charged and uncharged. Larson attributes this to the addition of a rotational vibration, though the origin of this rotational vibration is left unexplained. A second problem with Larson's electron model is that it does not account for the ability of the electron to emit "radio waves" -- something that cannot be ignored.
The photon, as described elsewhere, is comprised of TWO rotations, working as a bi-rotating system, resulting in a cosine wavefunction--Larson's "linear vibration." (See Nehru's papers on the Bi-rotating photon to see how this can be derived from the RS).
In a 3-dimensional system, this leaves one dimension "free" so the photon is carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light.
The positron and electron, as described above, can be seen as having either one OR TWO rotations, with one of the two rotations moving at unit speed. This puts them in the behavioral category of photons -- electrons and positrons are just "special case" photons, with the "special case" being that one of the bi-rotating components is at unit speed.
Larson describes the uncharged electron as acting photon-like, being carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light. When the electron acquires a charge, it no longer moves at the speed of light but becomes a free-roaming "particle", "static electricity."
Analysis of this behavior indicates that the uncharged electron has AT LEAST ONE free dimension to be carried by the progression, and it loses that (or those) dimensions when acquiring a charge.
Consider: what if an uncharged electron, a spatial displacement, encountered a photon of spatial displacement? Since the relation of space-to-space does not constitute motion, the photon will become trapped within the electron, just as charged neutrinos (time displacement) become trapped in atoms (time displacements), observed as isotopic mass.
The uncharged electron, being comprised of a "half birotation", has two "free" dimensions at unit speed. The photon, a "birotation", has one free dimension. When a photon gets trapped inside an electron, the photon occupies the 2 free electron dimensions, and the electron occupies the 1 free photon dimension, leaving no dimensions to be carried by the progression of the natural reference system.
This capture results in two observable effects: first, the electron is no longer being carried by the progression, and has become a free-roaming particle (behavior of the charged electron). Secondly, the cosine-wave function of the photon birotation will be added TO the basic rotation of the electron, producing a ROTATIONAL VIBRATION (the "charge" of the charged electron).
The charge on the electron is therefore a captured photon.
Earlier I mentioned "radio waves", which are electromagnetic energy or just simply "photons."
The only constraint for an electron to capture a photon is that the photon have a spatial displacement -- the number of units ("Frequency") does not matter -- they will still be captured by electrons.
And which photons are the ones with spatial displacements? Larson calls them "low frequency": near ultraviolet, visible, infrared, radio and television.
We can now see the mechanism of how radios work. Electrons capture and/or emit photons, and are the carriers of photons thru conductors. It is a noticed effect of RF circuitry and antenne -- the "skin effect" -- where the electrons travel across the surface of the conductor -- not thru it. This is the SAME behavior of charged electrons (surface) versus uncharged electrons (thru).
The photon, as described elsewhere, is comprised of TWO rotations, working as a bi-rotating system, resulting in a cosine wavefunction--Larson's "linear vibration." (See Nehru's papers on the Bi-rotating photon to see how this can be derived from the RS).
In a 3-dimensional system, this leaves one dimension "free" so the photon is carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light.
The positron and electron, as described above, can be seen as having either one OR TWO rotations, with one of the two rotations moving at unit speed. This puts them in the behavioral category of photons -- electrons and positrons are just "special case" photons, with the "special case" being that one of the bi-rotating components is at unit speed.
Larson describes the uncharged electron as acting photon-like, being carried by the progression of the natural reference system at the speed of light. When the electron acquires a charge, it no longer moves at the speed of light but becomes a free-roaming "particle", "static electricity."
Analysis of this behavior indicates that the uncharged electron has AT LEAST ONE free dimension to be carried by the progression, and it loses that (or those) dimensions when acquiring a charge.
Consider: what if an uncharged electron, a spatial displacement, encountered a photon of spatial displacement? Since the relation of space-to-space does not constitute motion, the photon will become trapped within the electron, just as charged neutrinos (time displacement) become trapped in atoms (time displacements), observed as isotopic mass.
The uncharged electron, being comprised of a "half birotation", has two "free" dimensions at unit speed. The photon, a "birotation", has one free dimension. When a photon gets trapped inside an electron, the photon occupies the 2 free electron dimensions, and the electron occupies the 1 free photon dimension, leaving no dimensions to be carried by the progression of the natural reference system.
This capture results in two observable effects: first, the electron is no longer being carried by the progression, and has become a free-roaming particle (behavior of the charged electron). Secondly, the cosine-wave function of the photon birotation will be added TO the basic rotation of the electron, producing a ROTATIONAL VIBRATION (the "charge" of the charged electron).
The charge on the electron is therefore a captured photon.
Earlier I mentioned "radio waves", which are electromagnetic energy or just simply "photons."
The only constraint for an electron to capture a photon is that the photon have a spatial displacement -- the number of units ("Frequency") does not matter -- they will still be captured by electrons.
And which photons are the ones with spatial displacements? Larson calls them "low frequency": near ultraviolet, visible, infrared, radio and television.
We can now see the mechanism of how radios work. Electrons capture and/or emit photons, and are the carriers of photons thru conductors. It is a noticed effect of RF circuitry and antenne -- the "skin effect" -- where the electrons travel across the surface of the conductor -- not thru it. This is the SAME behavior of charged electrons (surface) versus uncharged electrons (thru).
Every dogma has its day...
Bi-rotating Electrons
Since an electron can capture a LF photon, space-displaced motion, and an electron is ALSO a photon-like, space-displaced motion, the possibility arises that an electron can also capture another electron, resulting in an "Electron Pair as a Birotation" (See: Superconductivity: A Time Region Phenomenon, KVK Nehru, Reciprocity XIX #3, 1990)
Nehru wrote:
1) the character of the motion changes from rotational (two-dimensional in extension space) to linear (one-dimensional in extension space).
2) the magnitude of the motion changes from steady (constant speed in time) to undulatory (varying speed in time).
3) the dimensional reduction removes all electrical resistance when flowing thru a conductor (superconducts).
For all practical purposes, the paired electrons ACT like a photon, with one important difference -- the two electrons are ADJACENT IN TIME, and therefore DO NOT have to be adjeacent in space.
But paired electrons still have one "free" dimension -- a dimension that can capture yet a third electron, which adding a "rotation" to the SHM of the birotating electron pair, will produce a rotational vibrating electron "trinity," adjacent in time, but distributed in space.
The result: paired electrons can come in two "flavors" also: uncharged (behaving as a photon) and charged (behaving as a charged electron).
There are now four possible electric combinations:
uncharged electron: fixed in natural reference system.
charged electron: roams free; REPELS each other.
paired electrons: fixed in the natural reference system.
charged paired electrons: roam free; ATTRACTS each other.
The latter two form the basis of an idea known as Cold Electricity.
Nehru wrote:
Nehru goes on to state the characteristics of paired electrons as being:Larson (BPOM, p. 113) wrote:But as the temperature is decreased below the critical value Tc, and the electrons in the solid enter the region of the inside of the compound unit of space, the direction of the electron motion changes from outward to inward from the point of view of the stationary reference system. Thus the electrons start moving toward each other, as if mutually attracting.[In the] uncharged state the electrons cannot move with reference to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. ... In the context of the stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward... by the progression of the natural reference system
Remembering that the electron is a unit of rotational space, when two of them with antiparallel rotations approach each other to an effective distance of less than one compound unit of space, the two opposite rotations form into a birotation. As explained in detail elsewhere (The Law of Conservation of Direction, Reciprocity XVIII #3) a birotation manifests as a SHM [Simple Harmonic Motion]. We might call this process the "pair condensation," following the conventional nomenclature.
1) the character of the motion changes from rotational (two-dimensional in extension space) to linear (one-dimensional in extension space).
2) the magnitude of the motion changes from steady (constant speed in time) to undulatory (varying speed in time).
3) the dimensional reduction removes all electrical resistance when flowing thru a conductor (superconducts).
For all practical purposes, the paired electrons ACT like a photon, with one important difference -- the two electrons are ADJACENT IN TIME, and therefore DO NOT have to be adjeacent in space.
But paired electrons still have one "free" dimension -- a dimension that can capture yet a third electron, which adding a "rotation" to the SHM of the birotating electron pair, will produce a rotational vibrating electron "trinity," adjacent in time, but distributed in space.
The result: paired electrons can come in two "flavors" also: uncharged (behaving as a photon) and charged (behaving as a charged electron).
There are now four possible electric combinations:
uncharged electron: fixed in natural reference system.
charged electron: roams free; REPELS each other.
paired electrons: fixed in the natural reference system.
charged paired electrons: roam free; ATTRACTS each other.
The latter two form the basis of an idea known as Cold Electricity.
Every dogma has its day...
Electron aggregates
While working out the rule set to model the paired electron behavior, I made an interesting discovery. First, the electron, being cosmic, is a spatial displacment and hence falls in to the intermediate speed range. This results in two interesting phenomena:
1) All electron motion is quantized when we measure it. This suggests that the quantum distribution of electrons about atoms is a property of the electron -- not the atom.
2) All electron motion is 2-dimensional -- appears as a surface, not a volume.
A third item was also discovered that is unique to charged electron pairs :
3) The charged electron pairs, being composed of three electrons, has sufficient spatial displacement to have a physical effect outside of the unit boundary (ln(3) > 1).
What this means is that the charged, paired electrons, which attract each other, will actually form aggregates -- and those aggregates will be in the form of a surface, such as a hollow sphere.
This bears a remarkable resemblance to Kiril Chukanov's devices we witnessed in Utah a couple of years ago, as well as defining all the basic characteristics of ball lightning (ignores gravity, ability to pass thru solid objects, hollow, bubble-like structure), and the "EVs" that Phil was discussing.
1) All electron motion is quantized when we measure it. This suggests that the quantum distribution of electrons about atoms is a property of the electron -- not the atom.
2) All electron motion is 2-dimensional -- appears as a surface, not a volume.
A third item was also discovered that is unique to charged electron pairs :
3) The charged electron pairs, being composed of three electrons, has sufficient spatial displacement to have a physical effect outside of the unit boundary (ln(3) > 1).
What this means is that the charged, paired electrons, which attract each other, will actually form aggregates -- and those aggregates will be in the form of a surface, such as a hollow sphere.
This bears a remarkable resemblance to Kiril Chukanov's devices we witnessed in Utah a couple of years ago, as well as defining all the basic characteristics of ball lightning (ignores gravity, ability to pass thru solid objects, hollow, bubble-like structure), and the "EVs" that Phil was discussing.
Every dogma has its day...
Why 'rotating unit'?
This may be because I might have missed something fundamental, but why is the electron a rotating unit of space?
The positron structure poses no trouble, this is motion inside the unit space boundary, one unit of space associated with two units of time (1/2). This time displacement appears in polar-euclidean geometry to us, and hence rotational.
The motion of the electron, 2/1 in one dimension, makes it cosmic, and in the "space region" of the cosmic sector. This means we cross two unit boundaries from our Euclidean space/time.
One: The unit speed boundary, to go to cosmic sector
Two: The unit time boundary, to go to space region.
Each time the geometry inverts, hence we should get polar euclidean behaviour in time/space and euclidean behaviour in space region.
This must mean that electron structure is not rotational, but linear.
Bruce wrote:
Is there any lapse in the argument?
Cheers,
Gopi
The positron structure poses no trouble, this is motion inside the unit space boundary, one unit of space associated with two units of time (1/2). This time displacement appears in polar-euclidean geometry to us, and hence rotational.
The motion of the electron, 2/1 in one dimension, makes it cosmic, and in the "space region" of the cosmic sector. This means we cross two unit boundaries from our Euclidean space/time.
One: The unit speed boundary, to go to cosmic sector
Two: The unit time boundary, to go to space region.
Each time the geometry inverts, hence we should get polar euclidean behaviour in time/space and euclidean behaviour in space region.
This must mean that electron structure is not rotational, but linear.
Bruce wrote:
Is this two-dimensional nature being called 'rotational'? I am confused at this point.2) All electron motion is 2-dimensional -- appears as a surface, not a volume.
Is there any lapse in the argument?
Cheers,
Gopi
Re: Why 'rotating unit'?
Gopi wrote:
Gopi wrote:
As to your question... we know about the electron because of how it interacts with atoms. Therefore, the viewpoint is not the time-space region, but the time region, using the coordinate time of the atom (aka "configuration space"). Nehru pointed out in his paper on Non-locality that the space and time regions also have a boundary between them, s/1 and 1/t, so from the point of view of the atom (linear Euclidean), it would see the space region as polar Euclidean, and hence a "rotating unit of space".
Gopi wrote:
Gopi wrote:
When electrons interact, as exemplified with ball lightning, it would be like planes interacting to form a surface, not a solid. The ball would be hollow, not filled in with electrons.
It's all a matter of perspective...This may be because I might have missed something fundamental, but why is the electron a rotating unit of space?
Gopi wrote:
As far as I know, the linear/polar relationship only holds true for the inverse, which would be between the time-space region and the time region, or the space-time region and the space region. With the cosmic sector being a conjugate (rather than inverse), I suspect that there is also a shift in geometric stratum--no longer Euclidean geometry at all, but having more degees of freedom. Logically, that would be "metric" (possibly "affine"). With the extra degree of freedom, the electron would appear as a waveform from our perspective. (Since "scale" becomes variant outside of the Euclidean projection, in order for us to perceive the electron, we have to "fix" the scale to unity... that means the "tail wags the horse", and what was a "point particle" (zero) becomes an infinite wave.)The motion of the electron, 2/1 in one dimension, makes it cosmic, and in the "space region" of the cosmic sector. This means we cross two unit boundaries from our Euclidean space/time.
One: The unit speed boundary, to go to cosmic sector
Two: The unit time boundary, to go to space region.
Each time the geometry inverts, hence we should get polar euclidean behaviour in time/space and euclidean behaviour in space region.
As to your question... we know about the electron because of how it interacts with atoms. Therefore, the viewpoint is not the time-space region, but the time region, using the coordinate time of the atom (aka "configuration space"). Nehru pointed out in his paper on Non-locality that the space and time regions also have a boundary between them, s/1 and 1/t, so from the point of view of the atom (linear Euclidean), it would see the space region as polar Euclidean, and hence a "rotating unit of space".
Gopi wrote:
So this means we actually get TWO views of an electron... as a "linear" waveform via the cosmic sector, and as a "rotational unit of space" from atomic interaction. So I guess that makes the "wave-particle duality" just a matter of two, different perspectives of the same motion.This must mean that electron structure is not rotational, but linear.
Gopi wrote:
I used "surface" over "planar" because of the constraint that a plane is "flat" and a surface is not. Both are 2-dimensional objects; the surface being a warped plane.Bruce wrote:Is this two-dimensional nature being called 'rotational'? I am confused at this point.2) All electron motion is 2-dimensional -- appears as a surface, not a volume.
When electrons interact, as exemplified with ball lightning, it would be like planes interacting to form a surface, not a solid. The ball would be hollow, not filled in with electrons.
Every dogma has its day...
Positrons and Electrons
In RS2, the electron is just another name for the cosmic positron and has speed of 2/1 in one scalar dimension. Being cosmic, it has no fixed location in the material sector and appears more as a wave function than a point particle. Yet, we observe electrons as point particles… why?
Also in RS2, the charge on the electron is a captured, material photon, whose linear vibration oscillates the electron into a rotational vibration.
The material photon, unlike the electron, DOES have an identifiable location in the material sector and legacy science is observing the location of this photon (the charge), not the actual electron of the charged electron.
This combination of electron + photon = charged electron, like the neutron (proton + cosmic electron neutrino), is NOT STABLE. It will decay just like the neutron and because of the fewer dimensions involved, much quicker. My original estimate, based on Nehru’s neutron decay work, puts it at a lifetime of approximately 34 nanoseconds:
t = 2.99792458 x 1010 / 135.1111 * 1.519 x 10-16 = 33.9 ns
(I’ve asked Nehru for some input here, but have not yet heard back).
After this time, the combination will break apart into an uncharged electron and photon, both of which, because of having a free dimension, will be carried off by the progression of the natural reference system—unless trapped inside a conductor. If the charged electron were moving at the speed of light, it would decay in a distance under 10 meters (30 feet).
Legacy electronics is based on the movement of “charges”, not electrons. In a conductor, there is assumed to be a flow of charges that exchange places with valence electrons on atoms, where the vacancies left (holes) move in the positive direction, and the electrons move in the negative direction.
In Larson’s Reciprocal System, this is not the case. He does not have the “holes”, because the uncharged electrons flow thru the time of the atom (inside the atoms), not through the electron cloud around them. So the valence model of electric current does not work in the RS.
As identified in the prior post on Electricity, RS2 has identified that there IS a flow of a positive “charge” thru conductors, moving in the opposite direction of electric charge. More specifically, the uncharged electron, being a cosmic positron, has a projection in the material sector as energy, t/s, the same dimensions as charge, t/s. But, it cannot be localized, since a cosmic particle has a location in time, not in space. This accounts for the invisible valence “holes” that legacy electronic theory has. In RS, these electrons are moving thru the time of the atom, in the nuclear zone of the atom, and for all practical purposes, look like valence “holes” to common measurement.
The charged electrons, on the other hand, represent the negative charge of the electric system. And technically, that is correct—they do observe the “charge” moving thru the conductor, because the cosmic electron does not have a location in space—only the material photon "charge" does. So legacy science is correct with its OBSERVATION that electricity is made up of moving charges. But the underlying concepts are a bit off, and the RS/RS2 provides the missing links here.
As Rainer Huck identified, the concept of voltage (a force) comes from the difference between the magnitude of the positive (uncharged) and negative (charged) electrons in a conductor. This brings a lot of clarity to the field of electrostatics, where virtually ALL the electrons are charged in the system, thus giving rise to tremendous voltage differences, with little “current” (flow of uncharged electrons).
It would be interesting to investigate the N-machine with this new understanding, a “free energy” device that produces low voltage but very high current—the inverse of electrostatic devices.
Again, the corrections that RS2 has made to Larson’s work brings the RS conceptually much closer to legacy science theory—a good thing, because it becomes a bridge that is much easier to cross, and be accepted by, legacy physicists.
Also in RS2, the charge on the electron is a captured, material photon, whose linear vibration oscillates the electron into a rotational vibration.
The material photon, unlike the electron, DOES have an identifiable location in the material sector and legacy science is observing the location of this photon (the charge), not the actual electron of the charged electron.
This combination of electron + photon = charged electron, like the neutron (proton + cosmic electron neutrino), is NOT STABLE. It will decay just like the neutron and because of the fewer dimensions involved, much quicker. My original estimate, based on Nehru’s neutron decay work, puts it at a lifetime of approximately 34 nanoseconds:
t = 2.99792458 x 1010 / 135.1111 * 1.519 x 10-16 = 33.9 ns
(I’ve asked Nehru for some input here, but have not yet heard back).
After this time, the combination will break apart into an uncharged electron and photon, both of which, because of having a free dimension, will be carried off by the progression of the natural reference system—unless trapped inside a conductor. If the charged electron were moving at the speed of light, it would decay in a distance under 10 meters (30 feet).
Legacy electronics is based on the movement of “charges”, not electrons. In a conductor, there is assumed to be a flow of charges that exchange places with valence electrons on atoms, where the vacancies left (holes) move in the positive direction, and the electrons move in the negative direction.
In Larson’s Reciprocal System, this is not the case. He does not have the “holes”, because the uncharged electrons flow thru the time of the atom (inside the atoms), not through the electron cloud around them. So the valence model of electric current does not work in the RS.
As identified in the prior post on Electricity, RS2 has identified that there IS a flow of a positive “charge” thru conductors, moving in the opposite direction of electric charge. More specifically, the uncharged electron, being a cosmic positron, has a projection in the material sector as energy, t/s, the same dimensions as charge, t/s. But, it cannot be localized, since a cosmic particle has a location in time, not in space. This accounts for the invisible valence “holes” that legacy electronic theory has. In RS, these electrons are moving thru the time of the atom, in the nuclear zone of the atom, and for all practical purposes, look like valence “holes” to common measurement.
The charged electrons, on the other hand, represent the negative charge of the electric system. And technically, that is correct—they do observe the “charge” moving thru the conductor, because the cosmic electron does not have a location in space—only the material photon "charge" does. So legacy science is correct with its OBSERVATION that electricity is made up of moving charges. But the underlying concepts are a bit off, and the RS/RS2 provides the missing links here.
As Rainer Huck identified, the concept of voltage (a force) comes from the difference between the magnitude of the positive (uncharged) and negative (charged) electrons in a conductor. This brings a lot of clarity to the field of electrostatics, where virtually ALL the electrons are charged in the system, thus giving rise to tremendous voltage differences, with little “current” (flow of uncharged electrons).
It would be interesting to investigate the N-machine with this new understanding, a “free energy” device that produces low voltage but very high current—the inverse of electrostatic devices.
Again, the corrections that RS2 has made to Larson’s work brings the RS conceptually much closer to legacy science theory—a good thing, because it becomes a bridge that is much easier to cross, and be accepted by, legacy physicists.
Every dogma has its day...
Pentagen
bperet wrote:
See paragraphs 1.F and 1.L, respectively at http://www.serpo.org/release19.asp
Does RS/RS2 allow for Hydrogen 5 ("Pentagen" with half-life of 0.34 second) and Hydrogen 4 (uncaptured to-date)?Consider: what if an uncharged electron, a spatial displacement, encountered a photon of spatial displacement? Since the relation of space-to-space does not constitute motion, the photon will become trapped within the electron, just as charged neutrinos (time displacement) become trapped in atoms (time displacements), observed as isotopic mass.
See paragraphs 1.F and 1.L, respectively at http://www.serpo.org/release19.asp
Re: Pentagen
Eccles wrote:
It might be possible if the hydrogen formed a ring structure along the lines of the benzene ring, but cannot work as an isotope of Deuterium. Hydrogen, being subatomic, does not have any isotopes. Deuterium is the "real" element #1, with a mass of 2, and has a single isotope, tritium.
No, not as an isotope of an atom. The maximum isotopic mass for an atom is 4Z-1, and for Z=1 would be 3, tritium. See the "Gravitational Charge" article on the RS2 site for details.Does RS/RS2 allow for Hydrogen 5 ("Pentagen" with half-life of 0.34 second) and Hydrogen 4 (uncaptured to-date)?
It might be possible if the hydrogen formed a ring structure along the lines of the benzene ring, but cannot work as an isotope of Deuterium. Hydrogen, being subatomic, does not have any isotopes. Deuterium is the "real" element #1, with a mass of 2, and has a single isotope, tritium.
Every dogma has its day...
The Exciton
bperet wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton
And the spins even add up. In RS2 the electron has a spin-1/2, so an electron pair would have 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, making it appear like a photon (a boson). Wikipedia: "excitons are integer-spin particles obeying Bose statistics".
I just found out, courtesy of the RS2 identification of the legacy science "hole" with the uncharged electron, that this combination HAS been identified by legacy science as the "exciton", a Coulomb-correlated "electron-hole pair" that occasionally pops up when a photon hits an uncharged electron in a semiconductor, pairing the "hole" with the "electron" over a unit-cube size distance.The result: paired electrons can come in two "flavors" also: uncharged (behaving as a photon) and charged (behaving as a charged electron).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton
And the spins even add up. In RS2 the electron has a spin-1/2, so an electron pair would have 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, making it appear like a photon (a boson). Wikipedia: "excitons are integer-spin particles obeying Bose statistics".
Every dogma has its day...