[General] 21st century linear, first order theories. Are there any others?

davidmathes8 at yahoo.com davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 12 10:58:47 PST 2015


John
FWIW Rovelli has an interesting website and book that may of use.
http://www.sevenbrieflessons.com

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Brief-Lessons-Physics-Rovelli/dp/0241235960/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Best
David
 
      From: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de> 
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
 Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 10:52 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] 21st century linear, first order theories. Are there any others?
   
John,
For archival and historical purposes I note that the use of mothers by John is in reference to any theory has to be explainable to mothers and complementary towards our mothers.
The topological approach to d(stuff) = 0 suggests that one can transform between topological states. So d(stuff) = 0 has to apply not just symbolically but topologically as well. 
The transformation between a sphere and the three types of torus - ring,  point and spindle - as well as various forms of cylinders - annular ring
Indeed, one looks at a cyclone and might see a funnel or a cone. One could take an instantaneous view or a longer average view. The instant view is a particle on some invisible path while the longer average view gives a geometric shape. 
>  given that the photon is 1D (rotator) the electron a 3D (three rotator) the neutrino is probably 2D (rotator)

This statement gave me pause... there are two considerations for further study
If the neutrino is a 2D rotator, then the electron may not be properly described if we don't understand the 2D. IMHO no longer is the photonic electron the only focus, the neutrino needs to be modeled and the neutrino's role understood in relationship to both photon and electron, especially for the photonic electron.
Is there a photonic neutrino model?
Finally, I note some quick ramblings...
One is that the spinor approach is an isolated and fixed environment view and not necessarily interactive with an external environment as the pilot wave approach requires. Is the Dirac Sea dead? I'm also having a bit of difficulty resolving spinor approaches with geodesic approaches commonly used in modern relativity. Relativity may depend more on energy density and a more detailed characterization of the region between vacuum and void.
In the end we may find that QM is good enough for a single point, but not for energy densities which require another dimension or two: one for density, the other for the underlying vacuum or spacetime. 
Best,
David


 
   

   From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de> 
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
 Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 12:00 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] 21st century linear, first order theories. Are there any others?
  
#yiv3301571327 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}Yo David,

You are in luck! Williamson has been looking at the "common threads" between these models for more than three dacades. Let me fill y'all in, mothers!
#yiv3301571327 -- filtered {}#yiv3301571327 filtered {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {panose-1:2 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 4;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv3301571327 p.yiv3301571327MsoNormal, #yiv3301571327 li.yiv3301571327MsoNormal, #yiv3301571327 div.yiv3301571327MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3301571327 a:link, #yiv3301571327 span.yiv3301571327MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3301571327 a:visited, #yiv3301571327 span.yiv3301571327MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3301571327 .yiv3301571327MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv3301571327 div.yiv3301571327WordSection1 {}#yiv3301571327 John My apologies for this late response. I'm slowly catching up on the volumes of traffic. I find that physics is in need of roadmaps. Given all the various types of models we have centered around the photon including both electron and spacetime, just a simple comparison between models would help. However, by using specific types of mathematical approaches such as Dirac or Weyl, there may be useful insights into the common threads between these models.

Yep. The Dirac and Weyl and Maxwell (and Williamson-van der Mark) equations can all be written : d (stuff) = 0. All first order, linear equations. When I see Dirac and Weyl, I also think particles and in particular, Majorna. Not that this matter for linearization but the three types of particles matter as topological transformations. So linearization may not be the only approach.

Look David - indeed the Dirac basis and the Weyl basis have a spinor set of solutions. We can talk about this, but a good place to start would be in UNDERSTANDING the Dirac equation and the Weyl equation in the first place. Otherwise there is little point. Also, I don't like just linearization. Yes, I use it to make experiments work most notably Hoyle-Narlikar (linearized GRT). However, I fear I'm missing out on something by not extending the series or using exponential notation and using the full GRT. Furthermore, GRT appears inadequate at galactic distances.

Hmm, of the theories above only the Maxwell (and Williamson-van-der-Mark) operate. The others have solutions going round and round in circles very fast, over a small distance (explanation for mothers) - or spinor solutions for those who know what a spinor is. The explanation for mothers (of what a spinor is) is twofold: either it is a mathematical entity which needs to be rotated twice before it comes back to where it started or (Williamson-van-der-Mark) it is a doubling-covering flow in some space derived (literally!) from space and time. Essentially that object, is the electron model in Martin and my seminal paper in 1997, or in the pretty pictures of the re-circulating solution of the new theory in my electron paper. Difference between the Williamson-van-der-Mark approach  and the Dirac or Weyl method is that we DERIVE the spinors from the underlying mass and EM fields, whereas they find they need a mathematical entity with those weird properties, they know-not-how. In that regard, Peter Rowlands work has been mentioned. I would suggest The Theoretical Minimum (Susskind). Also, Dynamic Theory (Pharis Williams).  The Theoretical MinimumThe Theoretical Minimum is a series of Stanford Continuing Studies courses taught by world renowned physicist Leonard Susskind.  These courses collectively teach everything required to gain a basic understanding of each area of modern physics including all of the fundamental mathematics. Yes the Susskind stuff is good. I have had a go at the same sort of thing – but it only gets you to where people are already While the focus of this ongoing discussion has been on photon, electron and spacetime with occasional forays into quarks and the remaining bosons, there is this nagging question about how to model neutrinos.  Yeah yeah yeah. Imagine we did have a theory that properly modeled –the photon. Would that be a good thing. What is it? Maxwell? WvdM? Imagine we did have a theory that properly modeled –the electron. Would that be a good thing. What is it? Dirac? WvdM?  Imagine we did have a theory that properly modeled –the quarks. Would that be a good thing. What is it? QCD? WvdM?  Imagine we did have a theory that properly modeled –the neutrino. Would that be a good thing. What is it? Weyl? WvdM?? I have put two questionmarks for the last one as I have not bothered having a go at modeling the neutrino yet within the framework of the new theory. I think, given that the photon is 1D (rotator) the electron a 3D (three rotator) the neutrino is probably 2D (rotator) – what do you reckon?. That would make it nearly, but not quite rest-massless Anyway the next step is to get down and dirty and not just yap about this or that model and actually do some equation solving. Reading other peoples stuff is easy. Finding new solutions to new equations is hard. We have one, and only one, proposal within the group for a new set of differential equations of the same form as Dirac, Maxwell or Weyl. Two kinds of solution are interesting: firstly analytic solutions. I have a set of six of these in 1D (one of which is in the photon paper) and a proposal for one in 3D (the electron) – not explicit in the paper – though it is just a conformal transformation of eq. 21 in the photon paper and I have talked about it before. I think what is needed is a working group or two on the solution of coupled differential equations. I think to get actual numbers out – such as the charge and the masses, I need a group with competency in the solution of differential equations using FEM (finite element methods). Finite difference methods will not hack it – as one will need a pre-defined “grid”. Not good! I do not think it is sensible to include the whole discussion group here – as this will rapidly get technical and will lead to too much explanation. If we get anywhere we will report back! I have a new volunteer from this group who can do this kind of thing (Chip) and another couple I had talked to before and have brought into the group (Mayank and Joakim) there are also people outside the group who could contribute (Nick Bailey). I have worked with trying to get started on this before with Tim Drysdale (over a period of a few years), but not sure if he is still with the group.  Warning: this stuff is hard (even for just Maxwell). There is no pay – I have no funding yet – it would just be “for fun”.  Anyone else with competence in numerical methods interested in trying to find more solutions to my new field equations?  Nobel-winning discovery of neutrino oscillations, proving that neutrinos have mass For me, this gets back to the charge-mass relationship which appears to be a direct relationship in some case. However, it's not clear that the relationship between charge and mass is linear. David : this statement seems a bit silly. Everything has, at the particle level, one of a few multiples of the elementary charge. Usually +1, -1 or zero. There are, however, HUGE variations in the masses. The muon, is 207 times higher mass (6 cubed –ish) the tauon is 3477 times the mass (15 cubed –ish). There is no linearity to charge at all – at best some sort of combinatoric cubed (as above). Best David Cheers, John W.


From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: "af.kracklauer at web.de" <af.kracklauer at web.de>
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 8:01 PM
Subject: [General] 21st century linear, first order theories. Are there any others?

#yiv3301571327 #yiv3301571327 --filtered {}#yiv3301571327 filtered {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;}#yiv3301571327 p.yiv3301571327MsoNormal, #yiv3301571327 li.yiv3301571327MsoNormal, #yiv3301571327 div.yiv3301571327MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3301571327 .yiv3301571327MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3301571327 filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv3301571327 body {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv3301571327 p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv3301571327 body {}#yiv3301571327 body {}#yiv3301571327 body {}#yiv3301571327 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}Dear all,
I’m just writing a paper on the new linear set of differential equations I proposed last year and want to compare it to similar work in the 21st century, or fairly recently at least. I usually like to read a couple of papers before breakfast (thanks for keeping me supplied guys – especially David John D and Al) – but I’m just drawing a blank here. What should I be looking at?To be specific: is anyone aware of any other equations which have been proposed this century or in the second half of last century which can be written in the linear first-order form d (something) = 0?
For reference, what comes to mind in the early twentieth are the Dirac equation and the Weyl equation. There were other guys playing with things around then, but my mind has gone blank (Eddington?). Shroedinger’s, of course, has second order derivatives (though, as Dieks has argued it has first order features imported though the adoption of the de Broglie relation – and I am going to refer to that). I’m also not talking about further work on Dirac or Maxwell such as that by Hestenes or using the Bateman method on the Maxwell equations (of which the most advanced work, in my view, is that of Martin which he and I will review over the Christmas “vacation”). I’m talking about proper, basic, first order equations of light, matter or anything else.
David – you were proposing I write a review of comparable work (and I am delighted that you are going to review the various electron models!) – but I’m talking here about linear theories expressed in (vector) differential form, not about any specific model within them. Tony … your stuff is brilliant but second order – anything else you are aware of? Nick … Pask’s stuff was brilliant too – did he express anything new in linear equations? Also, of course, not referring to work on such perturbative theories as QED and non-perturbative stuff such as QCD, most of the “standard model” and the various string theories. Chip, Albrecht, Richard ... you have been looking at lots of electron and photon models - anything there? Joakim, Adam, Mayank ... anything caught your attention? Chandra, Al, Martin … anything on light beyond Maxwell or in “quantum entanglement”? Michael M, David, Viv … anything out there in space?
Maybe I’m being stupid at this time in the morning and more things will come to me after another cup of coffee, but I’m drawing a blank here. Any further suggestions would be helpful!
Regards, John.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atdavidmathes8 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>




_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at 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/20151212/d173698b/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list