[General] Weyl Fermions

[David Mathes]

John
I wish it (!) was just me. Since I work with a number of organizations, there are a lot of them that have detailed standards on english. 
Language editing by the various secretaries pointed out many other reasons that  had a major effect in many ways with pronouns of all types with "it" considered nothing more than a placeholder for something more substantial and readable. Working in Silicon Valley, I received a very bloodied paper and separate, yet complete rewrite by the reviewer, an overzealous english major from Stanford. After one moderates the pronoun issue, removing prepositions are the next opportunity to rewrite the sentence. 
Part of the process of editing is to remove all the fluff. In physics and engineering, quality writing has most of the fluff removed. In a rigorous peer-reviewed paper one expects quality writing with quotable english that has undergone review by specialists in language, science, engineering and mathematics. 
While there exists nice uses,  sentences with "it" are not usually not quotable nor memorable. My advice: use sparingly and in moderation at your own risk. "It" may be the difference between  a good paper and a great paper.
David
 
      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
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: Monday, July 20, 2015 1:29 AM
 Subject: RE: [General] Weyl Fermions
   
Hello David,

I understand your feeling about it, but there are two schools of thought and a balance needs to be struck. When I am writing with Martin he often accuses me of producing what he calls "Een draak van een zin" - a dragon of a sentence. Too long. I often split it into two by using an "it". This can make both sentences more readable. It is not a problem if the sentence follows immediately.  I'm, nonetheless, looking forwards to having the pleasure of removing many of them in my own review process and I do see what you mean about the writer and reader perspective. Good call. It was not something I was aware of before!

Regards, John.


From: David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:18 AM
To: John Williamson; 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 am the undesignated reviewer that is usually useful and occasionally entertaining. As such, I'm not here to provide a rigorous review or a deep vetting. I simply want to clear out a few obvious things and point out what topics might have been left out but where various disciplines might ask questions. Shear coincidence that I respond quickly. I'm not waiting around for the musing du jour. 
When I review papers, I realize from experience that one can go through 20 rounds with multiple referees. So I'm not advocating for any particular viewpoint. We certainly have enough of them. 
 I'm looking for clear and concise explanations, and the elimination of potential obstacles. I'm also looking for scope with an eye towards raising questions that various technical and scientific audiences might raise. 
As a sign of an educated author who goes the extra mile IMHO the word "it", an impersonal pronoun,  should be severely limited in any physics paper. One should write to explain ideas and concepts clearly removing "it" even if sentences need to be rewritten and combined. In order to maintain or enhance clarity, sacrificing conciseness is often a necessity. It is writing for yourself; no "it" is writing for the reader and the reviewer. 
My respect is for time of the reader or reviewer who may be reading the paper after a long day. I don't like to backup and figure out what the "it" or any other personal or impersonal pronoun is referencing. I'm fairly sure those who are tired wish that the author would permit them to read straight through instead of tracking all manner of "it" and other uses of pronouns, impersonal or not.
Your mileage may vary. 
Enjoy,
David



From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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: Sunday, July 19, 2015 7:52 PM
Subject: RE: [General] Weyl Fermions

#yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 --filtered {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv0084154961 filtered {font-family:Monaco;}#yiv0084154961 p.yiv0084154961MsoNormal, #yiv0084154961 li.yiv0084154961MsoNormal, #yiv0084154961 div.yiv0084154961MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}#yiv0084154961 .yiv0084154961MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;}#yiv0084154961 filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv0084154961 Wow, David, you are a very useful guy. Quick too .. I should ask – are you the designated reviewer for my article – or are you just being generally useful as usual? John Ok, I read the second page which basically details the approach outlined on the first. I only have some general thoughts.  The last paragraph is  > In the new theory space and time - the defining components of the physical vacuum, are primary and are always present. Space and time condition any root-energy into different forms, manifesting as mass (scalar), charge and current (vector), fields (areas), spin (volumes) and a spin root (a 4-dimensional volume).The theory allows, however, for the possibility that the root-energy at certain places may go to zero - an empty vacuum. For all practical purposes, of course, ``free" space is always full of the photons that paint our world - even if they are only those of the 3K background radiation. The answer then, for me, to the question posed in the title is ``all three". With ``something else", here being the proper nature of space and time - the underlying form of the ``vacuum" present at all localities. A few thoughts...  Maybe the term "root-energy" needs to be characterized a bit more clearly. If root-energy is simply a meta term for energy density that is a WYSIWYG massless particle or displacement, and need not be continuous thereby being reduced to the true "indivisible atom" nature of the universe, then I would be concerned about being too simple and curious as to what assumptions or clarifications I'm missing  necessary to develop and link to known theory and experiments, and perhaps other models.  Nope- the point is that such things as field are already (and always were) a kind of (literally) square-root energy density. To get the energy in them you must first square them, then multiply by a constant (one half epsilon zero for the electric field) then integrate over the volume containing them. Fields are not energies but root-energies. Literally. Have you read the “light” paper. This stuff is better explained there. Also the wave-function (the so called probability density) is also such a root-energy function. You must first square it then multiply it by a constant (just Joules here) then integrate over the appropriate space to get the energy. This is also a root-energy. Many of the basic quantities we physicists think we are familiar with (including the charge as described below) are really not energy but root-energy concepts. Obviously I am not making myself sufficiently clear! The zero vacuum might go negative. Vacuum does not mean void, and from a physics standpoint, void is not clearly defined as to whether it's the artificial emptying of all energy and matter leaving a spacetime framework with no matter, just a volume to be filled in time by external sources of energy. Alternatively, our universe may be naturally expanding into the void naturally. We may need to develop telescopes that can measure the void between universes.  I know the standpoint but do not agree with it. I also understand the distinction between vacuum and void. I could say a lot more about this, but it would take another article. One can take the position that the vacuum may support negative masses, but these have never been observed. I’m excluding explicitly anything that has never been observed. Standard QED does take this position, by the way. I do not. The popularity of zero point vacuum or polarizable vacuum suggests for vacuums and measurement the current technology limits  needs attention. One might add low temperature, and perhaps negative temperature views as well. Can these views support or vet the current position? Negative temperature needs material with the potential to extract further energy to exist. It cannot exist on its own. Even intergalactic space is ( at 3K) pretty damn warm on the (millikelvin) scale I have been used to doing experiments. So called “negative temperatures” are cool, but cannot exist in isolation. Energy is always conserved. Is there a "quanta" level? The proposed position does not answer this question. From a particle standpoint, I like the position as long as this position not only allow for electrons and photons, but a quanta that might define the photon. I think the usual use of the word “quantum” is just a vehicle in which to sweep everything one does not understand about a process. The articles posted are supposed to derive the origin of the quantisation of light (and hence angular momentum quantisation), from relativity, and, subsequently the quantisation of charge from that of the quantisition of angular momentum. Perhaps I am fooling myself, but that is the claim and that is the program I have been following for the last three decades.  For  any proposed model, even the simplest vetting requires the source of charge to be properly addressed.  The “source” of charge is in the new equations. I should realise by now that equations do not talk to everyone and I should have said this in words as well. In the new theory there is no single source of charge. There are (at least) four. The charge is the time component of the v-vot. In words, the time component of the 4-current (the charge, the 0-vot) can arise from the time derivative of the p-vot, or the space derivative of the b-vot (the f-vot, the field). Obviously I should have said this explicitly! Expect some clarification in the revised article! David Regards, John W.

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 9:35 PM
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
Ok, I read the second page which basically details the approach outlined on the first. I only have some general thoughts.

The last paragraph is 
> In the new theory space and time - the defining components of the physical vacuum, are primary and are always present. Space and time condition any root-energy into different forms, manifesting as mass (scalar), charge and current (vector), fields (areas), spin (volumes) and a spin root (a 4-dimensional volume).The theory allows, however, for the possibility that the root-energy at certain places may go to zero - an empty vacuum. For all practical purposes, of course, ``free" space is always full of the photons that paint our world - even if they are only those of the 3K background radiation. The answer then, for me, to the question posed in the title is ``all three". With ``something else", here being the proper nature of space and time - the underlying form of the ``vacuum" present at all localities.
A few thoughts...

Maybe the term "root-energy" needs to be characterized a bit more clearly. If root-energy is simply a meta term for energy density that is a WYSIWYG massless particle or displacement, and need not be continuous thereby being reduced to the true "indivisible atom" nature of the universe, then I would be concerned about being too simple and curious as to what assumptions or clarifications I'm missing  necessary to develop and link to known theory and experiments, and perhaps other models.
The zero vacuum might go negative. Vacuum does not mean void, and from a physics standpoint, void is not clearly defined as to whether it's the artificial emptying of all energy and matter leaving a spacetime framework with no matter, just a volume to be filled in time by external sources of energy. Alternatively, our universe may be naturally expanding into the void naturally. We may need to develop telescopes that can measure the void between universes. 
The popularity of zero point vacuum or polarizable vacuum suggests for vacuums and measurement the current technology limits  needs attention. One might add low temperature, and perhaps negative temperature views as well. Can these views support or vet the current position?
Is there a "quanta" level? The proposed position does not answer this question. From a particle standpoint, I like the position as long as this position not only allow for electrons and photons, but a quanta that might define the photon. 
For  any proposed model, even the simplest vetting requires the source of charge to be properly addressed. 

David
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
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: Sunday, July 19, 2015 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Weyl Fermions

#yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 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

#yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 -- -- -- p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0084154961 body {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv0084154961 p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0084154961 body {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv0084154961 p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0084154961 #yiv0084154961 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv0084154961 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv0084154961 BODY {}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 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 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>








   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150720/7b52460a/attachment.htm>