[General] Electrical Charge and Photons

Tue Jun 16 18:16:53 PDT 2015

Hello John M,

Martin and I do not tend to put stuff out till we are happy with it ... but we will be delighted to discuss it over a beer or two at the conference.

I was wrong to say that you have replaced one natural constant with another - Indeed the expression manifestly eliminates a term - and this is potentially a major result. It does, however, rely on the Planck scale having physical significance beyond a conceptual point where two of our major theories (QM and GenRel) break down. As I have said before, for me this is the major stumbling-block for me.

Also the result is orders of magnitude out, as it stands, though this may be fixable on further reflection.

Regards, John W.

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of John Macken [john at macken.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:06 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electrical Charge and Photons

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/[cid:image002.png at 01D0A85F.2F40A6B0]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.natureoflightandparticles.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/20150617/f6b01629/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 319 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150617/f6b01629/attachment.png>