[General] Axes plots

[John Williamson]

Could not agree more.

There is far far more unknown than known for all of us collectively. Further, any of our competences is dwarfed by those of all of us.

I see it now. Seuss was right all along (as always) and we need to go onto that new alphabet!

Gonna use it in the new paper ... watch this space ...

Cheers,

John.
________________________________
From: David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 4:16 PM
To: John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Axes plots

John,

"It's high time you were shown
That you really don't know
All there is to be known."

"In the places I go there are things that I see
That I never could spell if I stopped with the Z.
I'm telling you this 'cause you're one of my friends.
My alphabet starts where your alphabet ends!"

>From Seuss, T.G. "On Beyond Zebra" 1955

David






________________________________
From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
To: 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>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin at hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Axes plots

Dear David and Andrew,

There is a disease which I do not fully understand which seems to have infected nearly every physicist living and most for about the last hundred years. That is the desire to "quantise" everything from the beginning. It seems to me that, if you do that, you lose the possibility of finding out why things are quantised all. You are already lost. Ok it is kind of nice to put in something that you observe experimentally as an axiom, I suppose. Poor choice if you want to understand the origins of quantisation though.

Andrew, then, raises an important point. Why not a continuum indeed? I think the proper answer lies in the relationship between things - not in the things themselves. Things inter-act. Charge is, at root, (at least an invitation to) an inter-action.

Imagine a bunch of such inter-actors in a (universe sized) box. They do what they do. They inter-act. Now imagine some of them are bigger, faster, better inter-actors. It turns out that the universal law that big is small and small is large makes these the little guys. Small, loud and shrill. They throw out their stuff to all and sundry - losing energy (and hence getting bigger) in the process. The stuff they throw out is more likely to find the (bigger) quiet ones - hence shrinking them. Meanwhile (being small) they do not get a lot of stuff back. In time, if you have enough inter-actors then all tend to the same size and potency. Apparent uniformity (quantisation) is then just a result of thermodynamic exchange.

Discuss!

Regards, John W.

P.S. Spin is different!


________________________________
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<mailto: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<mailto: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/b99b6451/attachment.htm>