[General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

[John Williamson]

My turn for green ...
________________________________
From: David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:52 AM
To: John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Manohar .
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

John W.

Good to hear from you again so soon...I'm in the red....



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: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 6:08 PM
Subject: RE: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Hello David,

I know you sent this to Viv, but I'll have a go ...
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 1:39 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Vivian

Many of the electron models involve two photon loops. The rotating photon model you propose is certainly sobering, well reasoned and thought out relying mostly on nature and experiment.

I use to think that physicists understood only 5% of the universe. After reading your website, I am encouraged to see that can be reduced to approaching zero. This view certainly provide lots of room for improvement on many parts.

Too true!

What is a photon is the conference question. "What is a photon" didn't strike me as good english or even american-speak. Like many others, I have been wondering what is inside the electron and conjecturing it's some sort of photon with a strong bias towards nature and experiment as the final referee.

Only referee.

Like a little child, civilization has graduated from understanding the four elements to the Periodic Table to the 61 or so Elementary Particles. For me, I graduated from taking apart clocks to seeing what made them tick, and cakes to understand not just the end result but the framework of layers and toppings, the transformation from field to fork according to a recipe, and molecules.

What I really wanted to know was what's inside the molecules, then the modern atoms, where Feynman noted, there is room at the bottom. Nanotechnology is where the herds are discovering all sorts of wonderful materials and properties.

Yep. me nano-sheep. trying to grow down and become pico-sheep or even femto-sheep.

With the photon we are even lower that femto...but not at the bottom.

True, and with the Z, for example - but physics will stop you before you get there. I think we should write a book about atto the sheep though!

And here is this group focused on what is inside elementary particles, in particular, the electron. The electron is a key enigma and considered the unit of basic charge, that is until quarks came along or rather were invented to balance the equations since nature for some reason (TBD) does not permit us to view quarks with our current technology. In our quest to decode nature's puzzles and enigmas, We think topology and geometry play a role.

Quarks are not complete electromagnetic loops. They simply do not exist except as a mathematical symmetry. I am fairly sure about this as I used to hit them very hard, experimentally,  and they never came out. Martin will talk about their lack of physical existence in August.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Try, try again. And this time either get a bigger hammer (LHC, ILC, Plasma Wakefield accelerator, etc.).

True statement, but no in principle - we know the total mass-energy of the stable particles - and that they are somehow bound. Binding energy is negative energy. Also we know (roughly) bounds on the parton masses - and the percentage of the 4-momentum they carry, from deep inelastic lepton scattering for example, because you can hit them. They cannot be supermassive. This leaves no room at the bottom for the poor little things to exist independently at all. Try pressing a particle physicist with this and you will find they go all a splutter.

For those so inclined, topological modeling of the quarks and gluons may provide some insight on whether another tool or another method such as conditioning the energetic particles beyond U(1) to SU(2) and SU(3) levels may result in lower energy requirements and higher results.

SU(3), for example, is related to rotations. Extended rotations are a better paradigm - in my view - than simply postulating little hard bits with that symettry. Why? when proper double-covering rotations will do a better job? Geometry rules for me over little colored balls in a bag.

Then there are the charged boson, +- W and the neutral Z particle. That should be enough for the standard model folks. Extending to SUSY (E8 et al) should follow. For extra credit, try extending any parametric model to all the electron and photon models presented here.

E8 is a spastic hamburger solution. It is octonions crossed with octonions ( octonions are the biggest division algebra). It is pushed by mathematicians who think it is clever to be as general as possible - while keeping cherished concepts from real numbers alive. All this would be fine if it were not for the fact that it predicts SOOO much that is NOT observed. Experimental non-observation of predicted phenomena by the old-fashioned experimental method should mean : bin it!

So that brings me to two questions.

1. What is the process of symmetrization for the electron?

Energy minimisation. Strongest force satisfied first. Maximal internal mass and field cancellation. Result: spherical symmetry.

Apparent spherical symmetry externally while internally, there is a circulating toroidal massless photon or quanta.

Exactly. In momentum space.

For a parallel to spin frame of reference "at particle rest", the torus is an approximation of a sphere. If the torus is rotating and or precessing, any experiment will produce apparent spherical results with some anomalies which are usually attributed to other factors beyond topology.

Yes

This leads to understand photons...

2. What is inside the photon?

Stuff. Stuff that can transform through proper spatial and temporal translations to other stuff. You may like to call it energy, but energy is just the scalar part, so we need another word for the bits that are current, field and angular momentum. Anyone think of a better word than stuff?

I realizing everyone likes a photon cause it's mainstream, and the conference is about photons et al. However, the real struggle is the internals of the photon, no matter how improbable the models may seem, they suggest that the photon we know may actually be a quanta, spacetime or something else. One way out is to use multiple dimensions. Another way out is to renormalize. Another is to simply declare the photon is the bottom.

Too simple. Not so. Williamson1997 argued this. Williamson2015 thinks Williamson1997 was a bit simple.

I'm on the road to 2015.
2015 cannot came soon enough for me!

I would hope the photon can be taken apart and like the clock, found to have some fascinating set of gears and mechanisms, and perhaps an occasionally chime or nasty ringing noise. Perhaps addressing the other massless boson might provide clues to the nature of what is inside the photon. To wit, what is inside the gluon(s)?

No gluons. We know this because QCD is non-abelian and hence one should observe "glueballs". There are papers with my name on ot called things like "search for glueballs in ..." Experimentally, theyu are just not there. This should kill QCD if one applies the scientific method, which is why the scientific methos has fallen so very out of fashion in HEP. This has to stop!

I like to keep my options open. Perhaps this path needs to be paved with mathematical physics first. Then the experimentalists can try again.

I can see my typo rate went through the roof .. and I forgot to "blue" some of my stuff! Mathematical physics is a fine thing - but it has to be subject to experiment and the current fashion is to let things stand -even if in conflict with experiment. In fact, for some, it seems almost a badge of honour these days.

So this leads me to the next question

3. What makes the photon tick?

Space and time. Just look at the equations. What do you see? d space and d time.

Inadequate.

Hihi. Do not agree. d time is a tick (frequency) d space a transformation. John D is right: things only wave in space, in time they tick (and vibrate - with an inverse transformation).

I know what you mean though. My answer above was a bit facetious. There must exist something - call it stuff. That stuff may exist (at least) in scalar form (mass) vector form (current) bi-vector form (EM field), tri-vector form (angular momentum density) and a confinining form (quadri-vector). It is an interesting discussion as to whether this is enough or one needs more. I'm looking forwards to it!

As we stretch and strain photons looping them a few times to obtain an oscillating and resonant model, we simple do not know what is inside the photon.

Speak for yourself!

LOL. I am.

 4. Is there more "room at the bottom" below elementary particles?

Yes!

Ah, the quanta level of massless particles comprised of fields and more closely interacting with vacuum and spacetime.

Where is the bottom?

Look below you!


Best

David

Cheers, John W.












________________________________
From: Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 2:35 PM
Subject: [General] Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion

Dear All,

It has been a while since my last communication, primarily because of other activities. One of those is quite relevant to this discussion topic. Over the past two + decades I have been trying to understand the photon and its role in shaping the universe, from its smallest sub atomic particles to its observed large scale structure. To this end I have finally compiled a 400+ A5 pages summary of this study. You can see some information and extracts from it at my website www.universephysics.com<http://www.universephysics.com/>. Its relevance to this discussion is that it strongly suggests that all particles, from the lightest neutrinos through the electron, proton and neutron to the heaviest cosmic rays and accelerator generated particles are all composed of what I call rotating photons, i.e. photons of the appropriate energy making two revolutions within their wavelength. There is no other form of matter. For example, quarks with fractional charge and gluons have never been separately isolated and identified. Of course the theoreticians overcome that by developing a theory that gluons bind quarks together in such a way that the greater the quark separation the stronger the binding force. In the real world, the best reason for experimentalists not finding something is because it doesn't exist. This study is in three space dimensions and time. This study is a Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, black hole, cosmological constant, quark, gluon, string and brane free zone.

In the course of this work I have simplified the mathematics and used them to show how the rotating photon model matches dozens of measured properties of matter. Equally important I have made dozens of experimentally testable predictions of properties of sub atomic particles, yielding properties that are unknown or known but not recognised as such. Included among these is the reduction in the diameter of the electron (and other particles) with increasing velocity. I regard experiment as the only arbiter of the correctness or otherwise of a theory and have given plenty of opportunity for it to be tested experimentally.

The same applies for dark energy and dark matter. Under this model, the universe is infinite and static. The so-called anomalous type 1a supernova (SNe1a) intensities are predictable in a steady state universe. There is no need for dark energy to explain it. The "rapid" rotation of galaxies, thought to be due to dark matter, does not need gravity to explain it. Both of those features are supported by the necessary mathematics and experimental observations. The so-called "pillars" of the Big Bang theory:-
The redshift of photons from distant galaxies
Olber's paradox and the dark night sky
An infinite static universe will collapse under its own gravitational attraction
The greater prevalence of quasars at higher redshift
The hydrogen to helium ratio
all have very good explanations under this infinite steady state model.

Even before I completed this work, it was apparent to some people that the difference between cosmologists theory for the observed universe and the observed universe was 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe plus 10^60 other universes in the multiverse, plus several additional undetected space dimensions. Setting aside the 10^60 other universes, which are matched by this infinite static universe model, that still leaves a difference between theory and observation of 24 times the mass/energy of the observed universe. Until such time as dark energy and dark matter are confirmed, that is an error between theory and observation. As I indicate in my summary, that must be the largest error between theory and observation in the recorded history of human endeavour (mathematical division by zero excluded). If anyone knows of a larger error, I would be happy to read about it. Many members of the general public, and some dissenting physicists and other scientists are not happy with such a significant difference being portrayed as the best answer developed by those who call themselves the best scientific minds. Recently the New York Times published an article titled A Crisis at the Edge of Physics<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=1>, in which it quoted an article published in Nature in which the authors were critical of some scientists claiming elegant theories did not need to be tested experimentally. Such an article in NY Times is an indication there is public interest in these topics. Many members of the general public are not happy that the difference between theory and experiment is 24 times the mass energy of the observed universe. I use this as an example that there is considerable dissent in the scientific community and among the general public against those standard model ideas and there is a need for suitable alternative explanations.

If you go to that website an look at the back cover of this paperback, the last sentence reads: "Using little more than good high school mathematics, some readers will be able to understand topics that baffled Einstein and calculate properties properties of nuclei that baffle nuclear physicists." IMHO this is no idle boast. Using Einstein's principle of mass distorting space-time causing gravity, it shows why an infinite static universe will not collapse under the gravitational attraction without needing a cosmological constant. As for nuclear physics I give rules for determining the structure of any isotope of any nucleus, giving its arrangement of protons and neutrons, its spin, approximate magnetic moment, the skin effect, and with a little more work, its dimensions from its binding energy (or its binding energy from its dimensions, as well as the probability of it being a stable or long life isotope versus a short life radioactive nucleus, as well as some other properties.

The reason for this email is to suggest that the topic under discussion at the upcoming SPIE conference has somewhat greater implications than you may be aware. It is my suggestion that understanding the photon and the way it makes two revolutions per wavelength to form particles aren't just important. They are everything in physics, calculating Newton's universal gravitational constant G excluded (which I haven't done). I am currently travelling and not able to give more information. I will be meeting with John W in Glasgow in a couple of weeks and will pass further information across to him then. If I am unable to make it to the SPIE conference, which looks increasingly likely, John W may be able to convey more information to you after our meeting. In the meantime I make no apology for agreeing with most of the aspects about the photon forwarded by John W and Martin vdM and remain skeptical about contrary ideas forwarded by others. I am now moving out of telecommunications range for a few days.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson.





_______________________________________________
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/20150617/e9ca48ec/attachment.htm>