[General] Axes plots

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear John,

We need to get this group together for a week or more of discussions. I
have so much to learn. Each answer produces more questions. I am afraid not
to ask them because they may not come up again and I will have lost an
opportunity for obtaining important information.

   1. the 'quarter turn' would probably require a whole lecture to bring me
   up to speed. It may relate to 'up' and 'down' in QM being orthogonal rather
   than along the same axis.
   2. I agree with "integer wavelengths to minimise energy." However, is
   this true for the case of the 'untwisted' circularly-polarized photon?
   3. Aligning superposed spin axes of in-phase photons should increase the
   field energies and therefore the total energy?

This is much more interesting than writing papers or creating exam
questions. However, we do have those obligations.

Andrew

__________________

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:35 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi Andrew,
>
> No. The twist comes form the base equations  - its not a "knob"  but a
> consequence of the underlying thing the differential equations are
> describing. Each differential is a (precise) quarter turn in some space.
> Further, you need to join at integer wavelengths to minimise energy. Higher
> twist objects (2 - 3 ans so on) also need to minimise energy. Physically
> this means aligning spin axes. there are actually only so many real
> dimensions to go round (despite the idiocies of string theory).
>
> Regards, John.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew
> Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:28 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray; David Mathes
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Axes plots
>
>    Dear John W. and all,
>
>  If you start with a circularly-polarized photon, give it one full twist
> per wavelength (to 'unwind' it), and then close it at any point, could you
> not create the out-going *E*-field that we attribute to the electron or
> positron? However, since there is no reason to join the twisted photon only
> at integer wavelengths, then the electron would not have fixed properties.
> The only thing fixed would be the amount of twist per wavelength. What
> causes the photon twist in any of the models and, if the above model is
> correct, why don't we have particles with a continuum of charge (and spin?)
> values?
>
>  Andrew
>  __________________________________
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, John Williamson <
> John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>  Here are some using a set of axes, as in the POS paper circulated
>> earlier
>>
>> Torfieldrock just shows three views of a positron.
>>
>> Torfieldsinglemin0.4 is just a simple double loop. Not too busy.
>>
>> Trockrevert is similar to the first, but with a glass torus.
>>
>> Cheers, John.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150623/aadd65d2/attachment.htm>