[General] a new set of differential equations?

[John Williamson]

Indeed,

But the genie is out of the bottle, partly thanks to you, and your last minute efforts.

Now the process is subject to Darwinian natural selection. If the basic idea is powerful enough it does not really matter where it is published - it could be "written on the subway walls". If it is right (big if!), it will simply overwhelm the opposition, perhaps slowly, but inexorably.

The Dirac equation - and Dirac's others ideas, were very strong as well - but not strong enough to give all the details - especially in that charge was not understood - even though its partner, half-integral spin was. It was a very strange feeling for me to find where Dirac (one of my heroes) had gone wrong in this detail. Very sad too to realise that, alone as he was at that point, that there was no (easy) way for him to know. The thrust of this movement, with its now built-in faults (it was the (seduction of the) complex-wave function which killed it Richard!) was overcome by the stronger seduction of the new methods of perturbation theory - despite the misgivings of some of its founders (Feynmann!). The method was (and is) brilliant in keeping the proper essence of interaction, while ignoring (or bypassing) the calculational problems in integrals to zero length. This method is going to have severe limitations, however, as it is blind to those things needed to renormalize it (charge and mass for QED!). The whole thrust of the development of the methods of perturbation theory, now virtually the only story on the block, has since become mired, as it must, and has now become so flaky that missives entitled "not even wrong" on aspects of it are gaining traction. The time is ripe for change.

It is time to get back to the central path of proper science, fix the loose threads, and put up new theories subject to the real operation of the scientific method. That is exactly what I aim to do, with a little help from our developing movement. Once the gates open a little, it will become a flood.

No harm in helping the process by pushing on a bit though!

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: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:19 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] a new set of differential equations?


Dear John W.,

You made a comment:

"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."
You’ve also taken some shots at the Dirac equations. This ‘old’ set of equations has a solution for the H atom that is absolutely rejected by the PTB, because it is singular at the origin. The mathematical physicists, who have rejected the ‘anomalous’ solution for 55 years (or more), apparently believe in point charges and have no knowledge of nuclear physics and the standard non-singular potentials used in that field for the charge affects within the nucleus. Physics could be quite different today had the consequences of this solution been explored.

Today, it is not possible to get a paper advocating this solution published in a major physics journal (or even put into the arXiv). Papers arguing against it can be published. Why do you think that “a new set of differential equations with new solutions" would fare any better than the anomalous Dirac solution? May be it would take an engineering journal to break the news!

Andrew
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151201/9111067c/attachment.htm>