[General] Weyl Fermions

Sun Jul 19 09:57:50 PDT 2015

Hello David,

Good to hear from you as always.

I have attached the LaTex source code for those of you who may want to put it into your favourite engine. Let me know if this helps -- otherwise I will compile the thing again and send you page 2!

I'll go blue ....
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 8:56 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Kyran Williamson; Janet Williamson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Weyl Fermions

John

I'm a bit tired...so bear with me.

Thank you for reducing the "it" count to 9 per page, at least on the front page. I was not able to view the other pages if any. Send more.

That many. Oh dear!

Paragraph

P1.  Speculations are guesses. Theories are more in the hypothesis categories. One could argue educated guesses but they are really based on assumptions quite often whether the assumptions are known or not.

There is a sort of heirarchy of speculation-hypothesis-theory, with blurred boundaries. For Faraday, however, all theories were speculations. I'm with Faraday!

Mathematical physics is an invaluable tool. Yes, Nature has the ultimate vote on any theory and punishes the inadequate and incomplete with anecdotal exceptions that just do not fit. That is, a theory is not a law. The theory may work but not quite in all cases. Theories fall short.

For now, yes. If Hilbert's sixth is ever solved, however - no. That will precisely parallel nature just and no more - in every respect. By definition,  Hence my conclusion that it may never be solved

So do experiments. Experiments are contextually based often in a context of implicit assumptions. Explaining the assumptions would in many cases require another paper or book even.

This is very true, and often not realised - even by specialists. Many experiments even start by assuming a theoretical framework with a yes-no answer. Many - like (in my view most of the Weyl fermion guys by the way) - look for something sexy beyond current physics. These things often have far more prosaic explanations. Further, experiment is often taken by the majority (who do not understand it fully) to mean something other than it really means. A classic example is that the (democratic) majority of physicists think that the electron has been measured to be a point particle down to 10^-18 metres. This is not the case. It is a single object, with an inverse square law for its field down to that length-scale - yes. Point-no, Spherical if stationary - yes. Point-like - yes. Many people think my paper on coherent electron focusing shows quantum effects in quantum transport (about a thousand citations). Wrong. It is equally well explained by a bit of surface roughness scattering - as Stephen and I showed later. This is partly why I have been looking for a theory for decades with so very few starting assumptions - now down to just space time and root-energy. No more.

P2. Vetting permits constraining as well as sorting. A vetting process must be careful to consider more than one theory. And the foundation is only as strong as one can explicitly explain assumptions.

I would say explicitly FOUND assumptions. Founded on experiment that is.

P3. Allowable narcissi as a precursor to P4

Thanks.

P4. Space, time and energy density leads one to use 5D theories. In particular, Kaluza-Klein, Wyel and Williams (phat photon)

Yep .. and that it what it is ... in that sense of the word dimension. In fact these "dimensions", though, are not all the same sort of beast. The spatial triple, yes, very similar. But time and energy - no. In fact one has three extensive dimensions (plus and minus allowed for space) one positive definite (energy) (though that  may be debated) and one uncertain (time). On can try to allow one and only one direction to time  .. the negative direction being then our interpretation, not natures way. This pretty much works. Also Kaluza-Klein theories are not good enough, apparently, in that they all require a division algebra as a fundament. The Lorentz algebra ids not a division algebra. Cue lots of very very clever guys wasting their time.

Word order should be - Maxwell, Dirac, and Schrodinger

Thank you.

You give three choices, so remove the word "either"

No. Neither- nor-nor is allowed. So is Either-or-or. Or even Either-or-or-or and so on. It is only not common usage.

P5 An interesting exercise to challenge assumptions is a Monte Carlo (combinatorial) analysis of space, time and energy. Can one have space and energy without time? Can one have time and energy but no space? Can one explain CP and PT violations?

No, no, yes. One first needs to understand properly what space is - and it is far more complicated than just 3D. The second one is more possible. Need to think about that. It may be possible though to have p-vot and energy but no space. For CPT one need to understand the "why" of why C and P and T are related in the first place. This comes from the underlying proper geometry of space-time. The mirror space is close to the unmirrored space, but not quite so. Left handed and right handed differ in their effect on rotations of rotations. Hence the violations.

That's all I can read...send more.

Ok

Best

David

Cheers, John W.

________________________________
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson at hotmail.com>; Janet Williamson <janetconstructions at bigpond.com>; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Weyl Fermions

Dear all,

Please find attached the "position" document I sent to SPIE this morning.

Regards, John W.

_______________________________________________
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/20150719/82f55b7f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SPIE-position-JGW copy.tex
Type: application/x-tex
Size: 16088 bytes
Desc: SPIE-position-JGW copy.tex
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150719/82f55b7f/attachment.bin>