[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

[John Macken]

Hello John W. and All,

 

In your response you said,

Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
constant altogether: 

 

This is very interesting since this implies an alternative to my charge
conversion constant η. 

 

η ≡ (G/4πεoc4)1/2 = Lp /qp ≈ 8.61 x 10-18 m/C

 

(1/4πεo)(1/2) = c4/G

G = 4πεoc4η2

 

I admit that I think that my charge conversion constant is perfect.
Therefore, I would like to make a comparison to your derivation that
eliminates the constant 1/4πεo.

 

John M.

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 4:47 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Ariane Mandray; Philipp Steinmann
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

 

Dear John M and everyone,

Indeed it is useful to think about the relationship between things. I also
agree with John M that gravity and electromagnetism are different aspects of
the same thing. As I have said before,  Martin and I developed a toy theory
of these a decade or two ago which gave the right numbers (with zero extra
background mass/energy) but has not developed further than a a few pages in
our "appendix" due to lack of time or energy due to the demands of our day
jobs. 

At the end of the day, replacing one universal constant with another,
related one is zero net progress.  In Martin and my 1997 paper we calculated
the charge in terms of Planck's constant (or vice versa).   This is one
fundamental constant less. The basic idea was that the oscillating electric
field of the photon became uni-directional due to the folding of the photon
path into a double-loop.

The hope with the new theory, which incorporates the experimentally observed
properties of the four-dimensions of space and time from the outset, is that
one can use it to calculate BOTH from first principles. I have tried this
within the framework of an emission/absorption model in the new classical
field theory - and obtained an answer - but it is currently a couple orders
of magnitude out.  This is one of the areas I hope to get some help from
with within the group - especially those with specialist knowledge of Atomic
physics - which is where I think the answer lies. Martin and I are anyway
onto this - and he is already brushing up on his understanding of Atomic
physics (amongst one or two other things!) to help to try to get a handle on
this.

Just for the record, our toy model calculated big G in terms of 1/(4pi
epsilon zero)  ... thus eliminating (in principle)  yet another natural
constant altogether: one of the essential assumptions in deriving this was
precisely that there was zero net energy in the vacuum fluctuations. As is
observed.

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 11:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Hello John W and Everyone, 

 

In looking over one of the papers sent by John W. I was struck by the
following sentences:

 

This comes to one of the central, outstanding mysteries of physics. What is
the underlying nature of quantized charge?

 

It has occurred to me that I can make a contribution to answering this
question.  Attached is several pages from chapter 9 of the revised version
of my book.  In this I propose a “charge conversion constant” and show the
implications of this towards explaining the properties of a photon. 

 

I would appreciate hearing if anyone can find a single case where using the
charge conversion constant gives an unreasonable answer.  Also, the paper
implies that the spacetime field is the new aether.  Can you find any
reasons why this is not correct?

 

John  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150616/b24a14fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 319 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150616/b24a14fe/attachment.png>