[General] Nature of charge

Roychoudhuri, Chandra chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Tue Dec 1 04:54:08 PST 2015


Excellent!
Enjoy the matured life and the Year of Light.
Chandra.



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com>
Date: 12/1/2015 4:12 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of charge

Sorry, I used the wrong reply button. Long for such a book though :-). BR/joakim

On 2015-12-01 05:53, Richard Gauthier wrote:
Vivian,
Or at least the forward.
      Richard

On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:54 PM, Joakim Pettersson <joakimbits at gmail.com<mailto:joakimbits at gmail.com>> wrote:

Vivian: What if you invited John Williamson to write the first chapter of your book?
Besides, a Kickstarter campain for that book could probably finance John's work on that chapter and more ;-)!
BR/joakim

On 2015-11-30 12:55, Vivian Robinson wrote:
Johns W, H and All

I would like to add a little to the discussion, particularly John Hodge's request for "What are the fundamentals of the universe? In doing so I wish to shorten John W's list somewhat.

We have basic physical constants.
Planck's constant h
Electric charge  e
Gravitational constant  G
Electric permittivity 𝜀o
Magnetic permeability µo

On top of those we have properties of matter:
Structure ?
Mass m
Angular momentum Iω (spin and intrinsic spin)

Fundamental physical principles:
Conservation of energy, momentum, parity
Space x, y, z of any value (Empty space has quite a lot of other interesting properties, the greatest of which are 𝜀o and µo)
Position (wrt an observer) Δx, Δy, Δz from origin x = y = z = 0
Time (wrt an observer) t
Inverse time ν (frequency)

I may have left out some and I am sure others will add those I have missed.

Then you have derived properties,
velocity d(x,y,z)/dt
c = 1/(𝜀oµo)^2
Energy E = mc^2 = hν
Temperature
Pressure
Special and general relativity theories
etc.

The list of derived properties gets quite large. I would like to go so far and suggest some physical principles, e.g., Pauli's exclusion principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are derived properties based upon the structure of matter. You can argue whether energy is derived or fundamental, in the latter case, frequency and mass are derived.

As best I can work out this discussion group has been about one of those properties of matter, namely structure. What started out s a discussion on the structure of photons has been extended to proposals for the structure of electrons. While new ideas are welcome, they should fit within a few parameters:-
1 Known or demonstrable physical particles and principles. The standard model for the structure of sub atomic particles already has 61 fundamental particles (36 quarks, 12 leptons, 8 gluons and 5 bosons (including the photon). Of those, none of the 36 quarks and 8 gluons have been separately isolated and identified (they are all derived from experiment and mathematics). Only two combinations of two of the quarks form stable nucleons. Only three leptons, electron and electron and anti-electron neutrino, are known to be stable. The demonstration of their physical principles is almost entirely complex mathematics. Increasing that number and complexity on an "it matches a couple of properties" basis is not going to impress anyone unless it answers a lot of other questions.
2 Electrons don't exist in isolation. They interact with protons, neutrons and photons in complex manners. If you wish your thoughts to be considered seriously it would be advantageous to show how your structure solves some of the unknowns about those other particles and some of the complex interactions.
3 Demonstrate how a proposed structure matches known properties of electrons and preferably predicts unknown properties.
4 From a personal perspective I would also add that if you can show how your structure leads to what I call derived properties, Pauli's and Heisenberg's principles, relativity etc. that is so much the better.

Having said that, even if you do, there is no guarantee that your ideas will be taken seriously.

I now revert to John H's question, "What are the fundamentals of the universe?" Apart from those listed above and some I may have missed out, my contention is that all matter is made of the same "stuff" (quoting MvdM), and that stuff is photons. Thus the importance of the SPIE conference and this discussion group on "what is a photon?" That the photon is not a well understood entity does not prevent it from being used as the basis of other structures, as long as  known properties are acknowledged. Like others I contend that the electron is a photon (of a particular lower energy) that makes two revolutions within its wavelength to become the particle that is the electron. In order to physically rotate, it must continually emit and absorb (virtual) photons at a constant rate that matches its angular momentum (Iω), giving it the property of electric charge. Its spin is angular momentum, which is made up of the mass of the photon, m = hν/c^2, travelling in a circle of radius hbar/2mc at the speed of light. As it moves, its structure means that it automatically moves according to the special relativity corrections, with the added proviso that its radius must diminish as its velocity increases. This is why the electron is observed as a point particle when scattered at high energy. Its magnetic moment is generated as a combination of the rotating charge and the residual magnetic moment of photon's B field.

That structure is also the key to Einstein's E = mc^2 equation. When the photon is travelling in a circle, it is mass with angular momentum Iω = half hbar. Unlocking its angular momentum converts it to a linear photon with energy E = mc^2. That model makes a number of testable predictions of unknown electron properties. The two polarities of electric charge are the direction the photon that is the particle rotates wrt its magnetic field. Different charges are mirror images of each other. Spin is quantised because an electron can only spin one way to the other, wrt an observer. The different states of spin are merely "other side of the page" images (measurements) of the same rotating photon.

I also suggest that same model is the basis of the other particles, proton, neutron and neutrino. That enables a good number of properties of the protons and neutrons to be matched (I haven't tried them all), as well as predicting quite a few unknown properties that cn be tested experimentally. It also gives a structure and maximum mass for (electron) neutrinos and shows why they effectively travel at the speed of light c, even though they have mass. The measured diameter of the central core of the nucleons, ≈ 0.105 fm, exactly matches the radius predicted under this model, namely r = hbar/2mc.

The structure of the nucleons is responsible the generation of the elementary particles. The muons and pions. the longest lived elementary particles, exist inside the nucleons at rest. The remainder are only generated when accelerated nucleons, which have an increased frequency and hence mass, are stopped in a collision. The nucleons now have excess energy of which they must rid themselves because their frequencies are no longer stable under their rest time frame reference. They do so by cascading through a series of quasi stable oscillations, continually generating and emitting muons and pions as circular photons and also energy as linear photons. Muons are 1/9th the fundamental proton frequency and are a single oscillation, giving them angular momentum half hbar. Pions are two oscillations combined, 1/9th plus 1/27th, giving them angular momentum 0 or 1 x hbar and positive, neutral or negative charge depending upon their combination.

So it goes on. The proposed nucleon structure makes it very easy to understand nuclear binding and the structure of nuclei. You can get some more details at my website www.universephysics.com<http://www.universephysics.com/>. I have compiled everything into a publication, Understanding the Physical Universe, of which the website gives over 10% of what is in the book. I must get some time one day to take it a little further.

In the second chapter I suggest how special relativity is a derived property from the structure of matter. In the last chapters I suggest how general relativity is a derived property from the properties of photons and the principle of conservation of energy.

In summary to John H's question, the fundamentals of the universe are a few physical constants, some conservation (and other) principles and the structure of matter based upon the existence of photons. Most of the other properties, special and general relativity, uncertainty and exclusion principles, temperature, etc are derived. Which brings us back to "What is a photon". I am prepared to say "I don't fully understand, but that should stop it from being used in a theory.

Cheers,

Viv Robinson


On 30/11/2015, at 3:07 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

 Yo Al,

(Many others  French, Calibar parts of US ...)

Yep, round and round in circles sounds likely doesn't it! This is certainly true for most of the mad theories out there. The parameter count starts large, argues to deal with one crucial point which "no one else gets" but ends up (after including the ansatz) even larger. The better ones (most of us then!) at least end up with it being the same.

I have a saying in reply to a cliche. Onwards and upwards!  .... and round and round in circles!

If one goes up a hill one often ends up going round and round in circles – or stuck at a point! There is a group in Scotland who like to climb hills and pick off the tallest one a time - the so called "munro baggers”. My brother, David and I like to mess with this a little, climb the hills, walk round the top in a circle (without mounting it - but taking time for each of the vistas - spending perhaps an hour or two there) When we do this it always amuses us to see how many  folk reach the top, scan round briefly, maybe take a selfie, and then go straight back down again. On the popular hills, on a good day, this can easily be dozens. I have to admit, once the rush has passed, we like to go and sit on the top in peace and quiet as well- weather permitting!

Back to business.  In 1991 Martin and I made a list of all the starting points of the set of theories that constituted the then state of play of the “standard model”. I forget the exact number of a-priori inputs– but it was approaching a hundred. Think … six quarks, the SU(3) of flavour that goes with it,  the additional SU(3) of colour (gluons), three charged leptons, three neutrinos, four electroweak gauge bosons, The Higgs mechanism to deal with the mass problem, space, time, energy, charge, the Su(2) of spin, the plethora of observed symettries – CPT. A handful of “principles” Pauli exclusion, Heisenberg uncertainty, Mach’s …. wave-particle-duality, U(1) in general (as it pertains to the setting up of “wave-functions”, quantum “collapse”, the Poincare stresses lots of “conservation laws” (which tend to express the conservation of a quantity whose base nature is not more deeply understood) …. I’m up at over 40 already and not even trying!

Now it should be realised that if one can express any ONE of these in terms of another – and hence reduce the number of “fundamental” inputs by one, that this is major progress. For example Martin and my 1997 paper reduced the number of fundamental constants by one expressing charge in terms of Planck’s constant, or vice-versa. This is net progress. It also –incidentally, got the value for g-2 (the experimental difference for the value of 2 for the gyromagnetic ratio predicted by the Dirac model) from a consideration of the “rotation horizon”.  This latter is very important as this experiment is the rock on which all previous “electromagnetic electron” models of the 20th century (due to Mie, Einstein, Dirac) and many others, had foundered.

It is indeed so that parts of your (latter) list are derivative of one another – but it could be argued that the primary list (of 6) are also not primary. For example, I would not put all of charge, mass, and length there. I do not thing charge is a primary starting point at all (though I know current comes into the MKSA system). Also one can argue that mass and (inverse) time are related. Maybe I would add stuff instead – for example Planck’s constant hbar. Plus, there is the argument I have been making as to whether space and time, or their inverses are more primary.

After setting up the list, Martin and I set out to try to derive the starting point of where this all came from using the simplest possible ansatz. Now here comes the problem: as you say to a “newbie” that any of this should be feasible sounds rather unlikely.  Read no further: the man is clearly a nutter. No-one could do that! Just not possible. Forget about it!

At the same time, as things stand in 2015,  there are a large number of “competing” “theories” (as David points out), of which the WvdM view is only one. The present group, just by themselves, has lots! Not only that  - many of the others are more appealing on the surface – they speak to “common sense” notions which dismiss things many anyway find hard to understand – such as the limiting velocity of light, for example. Some speak to “familiar” science fiction, such as FTL travel and “many worlds” time travel that everyone has seen on TV and in the movies. The WvdM view is, relatively, extremely hard. Far easier to dismiss it and look, first, at something else. The fact that other “theories” may raise more problems than they solve, and may even be in direct conflict with aspects of experiment, is taken to be irrelevant. If one fails to understand so many things already, what is a few more?

Now I am very much in favour of saying what goes into a theory – and what comes out. The net balance then. A couple of years ago I gave a series of lectures on “all of science”. These took some of the base theories, such as quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and the “standard model” and explained what went in and what came out-  in terms meant for the understanding of (erudite) mothers. You can look at most of these if you like as they are up on Vimeo (thanks Nick!). Just google “Williamson physics vimeo” – should do it! The bottom line of those lectures is that there is an awful lot that goes into the foundation of current physics. The “standard model has over fifty “free parameters” (see above and below). In my view this is far too many.

On the other hand there are many theories out there purporting to deal with the “central mystery of physics”. One thing. These may explain a particular experiment in an alternative way – but in doing so they raise a lot of other issues in conflict with other experiment – which is further ignored. This has become all too fashionable – even for  so called”mainstream” theories (such as QCD) which are clearly and fundamentally in conflict with experiment. This is thought by many nowadays to be ok. For me, it is not.

Ok .. here is a (short) list of what one would really like to understand. Feel free to add to it

•   h
•   e
•   nature of space and time
•   CPT
•   Boltzmann constant
•   Non-existence magnetic monopoles
•   Gravitons
•   Allowed black body modes
•   Bell
•   Red shift
•   3K background radiation
•   Quantisation of e
•   Mass
•   Spin
•   g-2
•   Pauli principle
•       Uncertainty principle
•   Origin of universe
•   Flatness of universe
•   Conservation laws (times n!)
•   Energy ... mass
•   Momentum .... Force
•   Angular momentum
•   why is c constant?
•   and why 300 000 000 m/s?
•   wave-particle duality
•   Baryon number (6)
•   why only qqq and qq*
•   Lepton number (3) (3 generations puzzle)
•   SU(3) quarks
•   SU(3) gluons
•   neutrinos
•   coupling constant EM
•   coupling constant EW
•   coupling constant S (plus why running coupling constant)
•   Postulate of equivalence
•       Quantum measurement collapse
•       Dark matter

•   First law of thermodynamics (Energy conservation)
•   Higgs
•   Spontaneous symmetry breaking
•   Mach’s principle
•   Poincaré stresses
•       Why 4-D?
•       Why (apparently) 3D
•       …..
Good ho. Now the solution of Hilbert’s sixth should, if it is indeed a solution, explain all of these, just and no more, in terms of an axiomatic starting set. That is it should, for example, say why there is an SU(3) of flavour AND why the only observed states within this large group are in the subset of either qqq or qqbar. It should get the SU(2) of spin. Explain the U(1) of electromagnetism and quantum solutions. It should either predict the whole lot, or remove their necessity (e.g for “spontaneous symmetry breaking) – and explain why this is the case. Big problem!

Ok – those particular “big problems” (SU(3) etc .. not the whole list) ARE derived from the new theory. So too are observed symmetries, for example CPT. What has charge got to do with parity and time-reversal? Indeed. Easy to understand if you take charge to result from an electromagnetic localisation in a non-trivial topology. Other, things which fall (I’m just going up the list) are the  Poincare stresses, why apparently 3D, Higgs (not needed). The generations mystery, dark matter, the Pauli principle (my 2012 paper) and the allowed black body modes. This is quite a lot. No a-priori quarks

Hodge keeps shouting “what goes in”. John I (and Richard, Chip, John M, Viv, Hagen, Albrecht) have already said what goes in in both the paper and in lots of these emails. Never mind: I will say it again.

What goes in (to mine) is space (and its inversion), time (and its inversion) and (root) energy.

That is not really fair since there is – in fact more. For one thing there is a specific way in which space and time go in – for me as a restricted Dirac-Clifford algebra. R • Cl(1,3) – (as opposed to a general Dirac algebra which is C • Cl(1,3). Hence it contains not just space and time but the experimentally observed properties of “space” and “time”.  So one could better say that what goes in is this restricted algebra, root energy and no more.

Now this algebra includes the properties of “multiplication” “division” (and hence inversion as mentioned above) “addition” and “subtraction”. You may think the latter set are a given – but they are anything but. What does it actually MEAN to divide space by time. What is the underlying physical process that the (human invention of) “division” is meant to represent in reality? For this to be properly explained you need my and Martins paper on “division and the algebra of reality”. Coming soon!

What does NOT go in are some of the numerical values mentioned above – although given some values (e.g. h) one can calculate others (e.g. e).

So- what else comes out in payment for the input. One gets the Maxwell equations – all four of them and not just 2 as in Jackson. As a bonus one gets four more – connecting current and spin. One gets out the SU(2) of spin and SU(3) of flavour. One can derive U(1) as a simple projection of the better symmetry in eq 21 (e.g. eq 22). In other words one derives a big chunk of the starting assumptions of the standard model. One derives the point-like (as opposed to the point) interaction of elementary leptons. One gets the starting point of QED, while fixing some of the renormalisation problems. One understands the origin of CPT. One gets out the origin of the Poincare stresses (which bind the electron charge). One gets out a fully-relativistic wave function for the photon. One gets out the reason for the quantisation of travelling electromagnetic waves. One gets a possible explanation for dark matter. One gets out a possible reason for black-body quantisation. One gets out a new solution of the new equations corresponding to a charged, spin half pair or particles identified with the electron and the positron. I think, given the Dirac algebra existed already and that I have only made it simpler and more specific, this is net positive. What do you think?

Anyway, this is only the beginning. One has a new set of equations of motion to play with, just waiting for people to start finding more particular solutions.

More comments below (in blue)

________________________________
From: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> [<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>]
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:00 PM
To: John Williamson
Cc: Mark, Martin van der; <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nick Bailey; <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [General] Nature of charge
Privet, Ivan:  (Russian hi---more fun!)

I'v been writting "Clifford" where I should have been writting conventional/Grassmann/Clifford.  I.e., some version of the basic idea (toy model) that looks and smells like stuff found in no-too-esoteric lit.  Those more used to using than creating/discovering math find it difficult to translate to a known background.  (Same with languages, if two are learned without explicit connection, one may be able to speak both fluently but not able to translate between them, in real time anyway.)

You are right that people seem to have trouble understanding what I am talking about.

I find it highly likely that you, Albrecht and John M. are going in circles.

I agree about John M. and Albrecht! (sorry guys – you probably think the same about me!).

 For BASIC physics the set of units is: {e,m,l (x3),t}, that is, 6 entities.  On the hand, in physics theories there are many more inserted items: e.g., momentum, energy, wave, angular mommentum, spin, field, Compton wave length, deBroglie wave, electron, position, quark, ....... etc., etc.  Thus, among the latter set, there has to be gobs of redundancy,

True: see above

which makes it possible to "derive" (actually extract) various constants and magic numbers from other various combinations thereof!

Agreed. There is a lot of numerology bullshit out there. Please note, I’m not primarily about numbers, but about a new set of differential equations with new solutions.

  If you wish to argue that this is not the case, then it might be smart to so present your story(s) by starting from an explicit list of what your are inputting (and thereby NOT explaining) and present arguments why what your choice of inputs is, is resonable given available emperical evidence.

Good point. Have tried to do this. I thought that was what I was doing in saying what went in (space, time and root-energy) and in defining the algebra to be used. Obviously, this is not enough to get this across to most folk.

 For one thing, this gives the newby a shot at determining with relatively litte time invested whether what you intend to do is at all feasible given his (the newby's) state of knowldege.

Sorry, but hard stuff is just hard – otherwise loads of other folk would have solved the problem long ago. Even when discovered by another and then explained it remains hard.

  Of course, all conceivable refs, will be newbys in YOUR game.  This is where I stumble; usually I just assume that this can be done and give it a go---until entropy diverges and I quit.

You and me both. I tried it myself for a decade, gave up and went into engineering – then met Martin. Two has been enough!

For what it's worth,  Al

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151201/42853595/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list