[General] Pivot in the new theory of light and matter

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John W. and all,

I am using John D's truncated version for this note.

I am out of touch for a few weeks as I try to get 3 papers out before their
July 1st deadline and our 3 SPIE papers out before their July 15h deadline.
However, I did see the pivot note and that got my attention.

I am perhaps addressing that (or a similar) point in our talk at the
conference (A. Meulenberg, W. R. Hudgins, and R. F. Penland, “The photon:
EM fields, electrical potentials, and AC charge,” ). People consider
currents (dq/dt) to be spatial displacement of charge. In photons (in
particular the standing waves of interference zones), I think of this as a
temporal displacement of charge from negative to positive and back (AC in
time). This gives a pivot from 3-D to the 4th dimension and allows the
forming electron positron pair to be spatially co-located. They do not
become leptons (with DC mass and charge) until they are separated in space
(by > ~100 fm). I can think of energy in space as a twisted rubber band. At
some point, under further twisting, it 'buckles' and starts forming knots
(self-sustaining vortices?). This bifurcation point, a bending of space
into time, would be the 'pivot' that initiates the formation of charge and
mass (a rectification?).

I hope to have time (in 4 weeks) to study and understand the different
views of the group and to help integrate them into a 'defensible' whole
before the meeting.

Andrew



On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

> *John:*
>
> *Some interesting stuff there. IMHO your pivot-electric effect is just
> displacement current: light is alternating displacement current, space
> waves, and where it waves it’s curved. So light moving through light
> follows a curved path.   *
>
> *I’d be interested in meeting somewhere closer than San Diego. Oxford is
> good for me. London too. And did somebody mention Llandudno a while back or
> has that been and gone? And of course, if anybody fancies a few days in
> Poole, we have two spare bedrooms. *
>
> *Regards*
>
> *John D *
>
>
>
> *PS: I’ve pruned this email. They were getting bigger and bigger. *
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Williamson
> *Sent:* 16 June 2015 19:49
> *To:* David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* [General] Pivot in the new theory of light and matter
>
>
>
> Dear David (and everyone) ..
>
> Please find attached two preprints, one on the new theory of light and
> matter presented last year in Marseille at FFP14, the other an update of
> the draft paper I posted for comment earlier on photon quantisation  from
> the underlying relativistic nature of space and time.
>
> I had intended to get round to replying to you, to Richard and to comment
> on the (very beautiful) video posts of John M’s stuff . I may not get round
> to all of what I would like to do though.
>
> David, I had missed your first post an comments on the “pivot” in the snow
> of emails and the rush to finish this round of exams. I am now on annual
> leave – and hence have a bit of time to do a bit of proper work. Hihi …
> very nice indeed. I love your creativity and getting some insight into your
> thinking on what the pivot might be. Some of the ideas you came up with
> sounded similar to my initial thinking on how things turned, in my old
> theory back in the eighties when I was at CERN.
>
> Some of your subsequent emails referred to what you had said earlier and,
> out of context, were a bit confusing for me. Likewise, what I am saying
> will be, without reference to the framework of the new theory and the new
> differential equations therein, pretty incomprehensible.
>
> But no – that is not what I was talking about at all. I was writing,
> specifically, the concept of “pivot” in the context of the new, extended,
> theory of classical electromagnetism I am in the process of developing,
> aspects of which were presented last year at FFP14 (preprint attached).
> The pivot concept has also been talked about, in the context of forces at
> MENDEL2012 or before at a series of lectures here in Glasgow, at a Maxwell
> Society lecture in London in 2009 and at the Cybernetics conference there.
> The earlier work was in the context of a (more complicated) nonlinear
> theory Martin and I have been working on for some time. We are still trying
> to progress  that as well, though with mundane work commitments we have had
> very little time. My concept of pivot in the earlier work was anyway (very
> slightly) different, as our thinking has moved on a lot since then, so it
> is better to stick to the work in the current, linear, theory.
>
> Like me,  you have not had time to follow everything and, in particular,
> you have not yet found time to take on board all the papers I have posted.
> This will have made a good few of the comments I have made pretty
> incomprehensible. I have attached the relevant preprints (one updated) for
> convenience if anyone wants to know more about what I am talking about
> and/or make any further comments.
>
> I agree with you that we need to become more rigorous in our discussion. I
> agree wholeheartedly that we all need to make more effort in defining what
> we are talking about, otherwise we will get mired in tiresome discussions
> of the meaning of terms. I’m afraid this means, practically, that we
> reference what we are talking about where possible, to the proper theory
> and to the proper mathematics. For example, when Richard talks about the
> equation governing his “charged photon” as being the Schrodinger equation –
> we then know that the rigorous behavior of charged photon fluid is, for
> him, the same as the probability density squared in Schroedinger quantum
> mechanics. One can then discuss this without the words getting in the way.
> We can then waste less time wondering just what each other are talking
> about. As one of the worst offenders in the confusion stakes this may sound
> a bit like the pot calling the kettle black- but I am trying now and will
> try to do better in future!
>
> The new theory, aspects of which are covered in the attached preprints, is
> in conventional terms a set of eight, coupled linear differential
> equations. They encompass the Maxwell equations. They are better written,
> however, as a single linear differential equations over space and time. In
> this sense, the new theory has as a basis the proper relativistic
> properties of space and time. Built in.
>
> Written as a single equation, the new equation looks similar (and is
> similar) to the Dirac equation. It is more comprehensive, however, and
> considers mass, charge, current electric field, magnetic field and three
> other (unfamiliar to most) kinds of quantities – one corresponding to an
> intrinsic angular momentum density, another to an directed volume (we hall
> it a hedgehog as it is either inward or outward directed in 3d space) and
> the other to a kind of four dimensional hedgehog (which may also be inward
> or outward directed and acts a bit like the complex scalar i). I know this
> is hard guys – but understanding just how the universe works was never
> going to by easy!
>
> The new theory, rather than needing to posit spinors, derives them. Like
> the Dirac equation it has at the simplest level just four solutions,
> corresponding to double-covering field-pivot vortices in 4-momentum space.
> One pair is negatively charged, the other positive. In each pair there is
> an intrinsic spin which can be either leftwards or rightwards. From the
> perspective of the new theory, where Dirac initially went wrong was in his
> assignment of the intrinsic nature of mass in his (too large) algebra.
>
> The fact that the solutions are vortices in momentum space and not
> space-space means one has to look at a projection to see what they look
> like in space. This is why they can be both spherical and toroidal. Sphere
> and torus are both projections of higher dimensional spheres.
>
> In the simplest extension of the new theory over and above Maxwell, my
> concept of the “pivot” acts as a seventh dynamical  “field” component. This
> is the “P” term in the differential equations in the two papers attached.
>
> Unfortunately, it is the paper yet to come though, on the photon and
> electron, which has not been drafted yet, which will explain the pivot
> aspect in more detail. Though, in some senses, I should be working on doing
> that rather than writing this email – this process is helping to clarify my
> thoughts on explaining myself. This is a job for the next few weeks.
>
> The draft photon quantization paper (attached) now has a note on the Phat
> photons David M picked up, which I have now referenced (thanks to David).
> There has been some revision, to explain points of confusion arising in the
> discussion with this group.
>
> In the new theory, the pivot, like the electric and magnetic fields, is
> smooth and continuous and can take any value. This value is usually zero in
> free space since it is strongly scavenged by existing material particles –
> which absorb it as low-energy heat.  In contrast to the proper nature of
> the electric and magnetic fields (tensor or bi-vector components) the pivot
> is a Lorentz invariant scalar transforming like a rest-mass. It is next to
> impossible to produce and measure free pivot (if it exists at all) as it
> would rapidly be sucked into anything that looks like a pre-existing
> particle (such as any measurement equipment). If it exists anywhere in the
> universe it would need to be far from existing matter. It could then
> constitute a candidate for dark matter – which may itself be worth a paper
> suggesting this possibility (I’m happy to co-author one such with any of
> you with expertise in cosmology or astrophysics).
>
> So – how does the new theory introduce forces strong enough to constrain
> light? Briefly, the Poynting vector usually is S = E X B, representing a
> kind of field momentum density … within the new theory this gets an extra
> term such that Sp = E X B +EP, where P is this new Pivot term (which is
> always zero for free space). It is this product of electric field and pivot
> which is related to the confinement force (force density components arise
> form its 4-differential). Now the difference between this rest mass density
> in the new theory and in that of Dirac, for example, is that here the Pivot
> is dynamical – in the same way that E and B satisfy a differential equation
> with respect to both space and time, so too does the pivot (you need to
> look at the equations in the paper). The rate of change of pivot is related
> to the charge. This makes (QED) sense as it constitutes mass-energy
> exchange. Clearly, from the equation its effect is to introduce curvature
> into the momentum density flow, as it is in the direction of the electric
> field, which is perpendicular to the Poynting vector. In the presence of
> pivot the direction of momentum transport curves smoothly, which is why I
> called it the pivot. If you get enough pivot, the idea is that the field
> may propagate round and round in circles in an electro-pivot-magnetic
> vortex. An elementary (rest) massive particle. The pivot-electric effect
> does not stop the magneto-electric flow, merely turns (pivots) it. Enough
> pivot is not a very great deal – the same order of magnitude as the
> magnetic field (with which it shares the same physical units) will
> suffice.  It is then the interaction between the electric field and the
> pivot (as in the equation above) that provides a confinement mechanism for
> something that is no longer light (though related), but now an electron.
> There are a further set of particles with tighter twists. These have the
> mass spectrum of the higher leptons (the muon and tauon).
>
> The differential of the momentum is, of course, a confining force. The
> radius of curvature sets a size scale. Though the curvature is in a
> peculiar (4-momentum) space this may be expressed in metres and is lcom/
> 4pi. The thing is self-confined partly because the pivot is two
> differential orders away from the field, and hence is 180 degrees out of
> phase. More pivot means more mass, a tighter curve and hence a smaller
> object (as is observed). Similar objects all have the same mass, if
> charged, because they can exchange mass-energy with one another through
> photon exchange and hence equilibrate.  It is all very very beautiful!
>
> Just for information this note (and the preprints) is intended to be
> forwarded to other people in a few other groups who may be interested and
> with whom I am currently corresponding (mostly people copied in earlier
> emails. including Tony Booth, Basil Hiley, Roger Penrose, Michael Wright
> and Alex Afriat but also some folk in another study group Martin and I
> belong to).
>
> It strikes me that Andrew is right that we, as a group, may need more
> interaction after San Diego, both within our group and with an extended
> group including the people mentioned above and others each of you may know.
> Anyone interested in organizing a conference or workshop in Europe perhaps?
> Anyone prepared to help with trying to find funding for travel and so on? I
> would do it, but I have so very little time now and no talent for
> organizing anything (even myself!). I need to conserve as much energy and
> time as possible into scraping a little time together to develop and
> promote the new theory. We could hold it here in Scotland in Edinburgh or
> Glasgow, or in Oxford or Cambridge, Amsterdam, Brno or Prague perhaps? Some
> of us are anyway trying to organize a European group to further the new
> physics. The European members of the group may wish to get involved with
> this for the next round of funding. Some of you may also have industrial
> contacts willing to help sponsor such an effort in return for participation
> and interaction with the group. All are welcome! My experience in the past
> is if we can get a few people on board it can rapidly snowball. Networking
> at the conference can help – but it is always better to prepare the ground
> beforehand.
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20150616/c41972b0/attachment.htm>