[General] Gerade was ich brauche... Vot is der matter?

[John Williamson]

Bitte schon!

You are very welcome.

You are right (about the spinors).

You are right to worry about momentum (and angular momentum) conservation - but do not worry too much.

One can write a generalised momentum density as G G*. Ok it is 256 terms but there you go. If one (4-) diferentiates this one has 1024 terms of non-linear coupled differential equations it is true, but this is not as bad as it sounds. Setting this to zero (that is writing d (G G*) = 0) is then an expression of momentum conservation (and angular momentum and all forms of vot conservation). Ok, this is a little more complicated than Maxwell or RQM or QED but there is hope: it is sufficient that the simpler (generalised Maxwell) equation dG=0 is satisfied. That is the equation given in the first paper. In other words the new equation automatically satisfies both momentum and angular momentum conservation everywhere, automatically, locally and in all frames. Cool huh?

Regards, John.

________________________________
From: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:52 AM
To: John Williamson
Subject: Gerade was ich brauche... Vot is der matter?

John

Spinors...ah, after living with the graphic on the photon, that is what I think you are getting at...

I'm not looking at taking your long form equation and looking at conservation of momentum issues.

Best

David




________________________________
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
Cc: Mary Fletcher <marycfletcher at gmail.com>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; robert hudgins <hudginswr at msn.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Vot is der matter?

Dear All (but especially Andrew as it answers his questions below),

Please find attached a version of the "position" statement as a contribution to the general paper and a copy of the "quantisation of light" paper.  I will send the other paper in a separate email as it otherwise exceeds the Discussion group size limit.

In the papers(s) the answer to "vot is der matter?" is "matter is the vot".

The attached paper starts with an extension of relativity theory, incorporating the absolute nature of space and time. In the new method all four Maxwell equations may be written as a single equation dF=0, or dF = J if charge is taken a-priori as is conventional.

The papers attached does not, however, consider the origin of charge (see next email), but merely derives a new kind of wave-function. That wave function is a solution to the first order Maxwell equation (not just the second order wave equation as is usual). It contains both electric AND magnetic field components, is fully relativistic (a big prize) and, most importantly, is quantised in that it describes the same angular momentum for all photons emitted from quantised emitters and/or absorbed by quantised absorbers. This encompasses nearly all physical photons that have ever been observed.

It predicts, however, that field remains continuous - capable of different kinds of quantisation, or, in the near field, no quantisation at all. That is - Maxwell theory as it stood 150 years ago was already very near to the truth.
To start to get this you do not need to read this email, you need to read the paper!
Regards, John.


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:14 PM
To: Richard Gauthier
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mary Fletcher; robert hudgins
Subject: Re: [General] Vot is der matter?

Dear Richard,

Without realizing it, I think that I did pick up what John W was saying. TE-vot ^2 is total energy, the scalar. TE-vot is a vector, with properties TBD.

Andrew

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
Andrew,
   It would seem that TE-vot = KE-vot + PE-vot.  Energy is a scalar not a vector with vector components.
          Richard

On Aug 17, 2015, at 4:59 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear Andrew,

Yes. Root-energy density is just square-root-energy density.  As in square it and integrate it over a volume density. No-one likes new stuff.  Ke-vot and PE-vot are then valid quantities. Have a go at the papers! If they are hard to understand I want to know about it!

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 12:43 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg; Mary Fletcher; robert hudgins
Subject: [General] Vot is der matter?

Dear John W,

Sometimes I think that I might actually understand what you are saying.

I hated your introduction of the word 'vot'. I did not understand it or why you though it was needed or useful. It had 'nothing' to give it a frame of reference (such as abbreviations do).

However, yesterday I found myself proposing to Bob that we might think of energy in a new manner. Just as intensities are scalars that come from amplitudes squared, can kinetic and potential energies (KE and PE) be squares of orthogonal components (aka KE-vot and PE-vot) of a total-energy vector TE-vot? Thus:

TE-vot = sqrt[(KE-vot)^2 + PE-vot)^2 + ...].

Is there something useful here? Can it determine what parts of a spinning gyroscope are KE and which are PE? Is matter PE or KE? Is there a mass-vot, etc. of a multi-dimensional vector? If so, what kind of algebra pertains?

I still don't know what your concept is. (I hope to have time to finally read your papers.) Did your definition of "root energy density" finally hit me that you may be simply referring to square root, not just to a 'deeper' aspect of the word energy? Did I pick up something at a subconscious level or did a 'mystery' (to me) simply trigger a search response in a different direction?

Then I see pi-vot and, connecting 'pi' with rotary motion and vortices, I connect it all with an internal wave motion. Then I remember that, while bullshit is good fertilizer, It is only useful if good seeds are planted. Is my mind being expanded - or simply 'bent'.

Andrew
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>



_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150825/30c60c11/attachment.htm>