[General] Force Equations

David Mathes davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Thu May 28 11:51:47 PDT 2015


Martin
My friend, interesting observation. Also, my particle/quanta bias is showing. I should have been a bit more field oriented and explicit about basis for the tangents I was taking.

In Hestenes book, Clifford Algebra to Geometric Calculus, he states more clearly what I was thinking. Emphasis is mine.
"Many distinct algebraic systems have been adapted or developed to express geometric relations and describe geometric structures. Especially notable are those algebras which have been used for this purpose in physics, in particular, the system of complex numbers, the quaternions, matrix algebra, vector, tensor and spinor algebras and the algebra of differential forms. Each of these geometric algebras has some significant advantage over the others in certain applications, so no one of them provides an adequate algebraic structure for all purposes of geometry and physics. At the same time, the algebras overlap considerably, so they provide several different mathematical representations for individual geometrical or physical ideas."
Having been a student of MTW Gravitation, for decades I have always been under the impression that to do real physics  to be useful that tensors and even the four or six vector EM, need to be reduced to a three vector, especially in the context of Special Relativity and General Relativity. Matrix algebra, Clifford Algebra and quaternions have not successfully change that impression. Complex numbers have caused pause though.
David



 
      From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:16 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations
   
Dear David, Unfortunately you do not have a clue of what i am talking about. First, I was refering to the clifford six vector for electromagnetism, the equivalent of the faraday tensor in covariant notation.Second, i meant the mathematical structure of Hopf fibrations, known to people who do topologial fields.I try to take my opponent to be knowledgable, but my capacity to be clear may have failed me again, that should be fixed now.Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 28 mei 2015 om 19:07 heeft David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> het volgende geschreven:




Martin
I was referring to the comment about EM as being "...a six-vector field, not a scalar field."
Topological descriptions which involve turns, twists and knots will have to provide at some point a physical reason such states. Conservation of momentum is usually the guiding requirement with conservation of energy, charge, spin and mass addressed as well. Beyond these direct measurements everything else is calculated.
So any suggestion of a twist, turn, and knot... or not, as in absence of...will need to be addressed. 
Since the extreme frequencies of any circulating quanta may blur results, fibration can also be viewed as a short coming of instrumentation limits or interpretated results where the quanta is simply too fast to be observed clearly. 
 Given that my paper is a view of topological models for the Standard Model for the Standard Model, a good mathematical physics definition suitable for topological considerations is summarized by Kaplunovsky (UT-Austin) which is used for courses in Quantum Field Theory and Advanced Supersymmetry.
 http://bolvan.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/classes/11f/SM.pdf
For EM, one can begin with other choices that are simpler in scope even for the twists. Polarization *might* be one way to explain the twist. 
While there is some appeal in to twists and fibration, one does have to pay careful attention since - as you point out - these twists may be nested with more than just two layers. We can make it complicated, does nature? At the macro level,  plants fibers can be used. However, nature delivers a variety of structures at the macro level such as bamboo as a multistory building material. At the micro level nature continues the parade of filaments with carbon tubes and DNA. Polymers also come to mind but basically, any long chain molecule will be at least an initial candidate. However, I don't see long chains at the elementary particle level. 
So one idea is that a particle or quanta is producing a wake of energy density disturbance, and that wake decay is sufficiently long enough to interpret as a filament or fiber. However, one could easily go to a relativistic velocities and perform an Alice and Bob analysis of what an extreme speed quanta may appear like.
If we stipulate that vibrations can be the simplest 3D geometric forms of the one or two loops, a simple rotation leads us into slightly more complex structures including ellipsoid, sphere, toroids and cylindrical forms, and the physics becomes complex rather quickly. Richard has toroid equation sets for variants for Newtonian, Relativistic and even Transluminal models. So fibration versions of these might prove interesting and perhaps a bit challenging.  
So resonance can be interpreted in many ways by a circulating particle or quanta in the form of a ribbon or wake decay with associated twists, turns and knots as well as modulations. Or not.
Best
David
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 4:14 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Force Equations

#yiv4730905397 -- filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv4730905397 filtered {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv4730905397 filtered {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv4730905397 filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397MsoNormal, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397MsoNormal, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 h3 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:13.5pt;}#yiv4730905397 a:link, #yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 a:visited, #yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397MsoAcetate, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397MsoAcetate, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397Heading3Char {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msoacetate, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msoacetate, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msoacetate {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msonormal, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msonormal, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msonormal {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msochpdefault, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msochpdefault, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msochpdefault {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msonormal1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msonormal1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msonormal1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msoacetate1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msoacetate1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msoacetate1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msochpdefault1, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msochpdefault1, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlink {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397heading3char {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlink1 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlinkfollowed1 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397heading3char1 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397emailstyle191 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397spiepapertitlecharchar1 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitlecharchar1 {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397emailstyle47 {}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msonormal2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msonormal2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msonormal2 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlink2 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlinkfollowed2 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msoacetate2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msoacetate2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msoacetate2 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397heading3char2 {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msonormal3, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msonormal3, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msonormal3 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msochpdefault2, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msochpdefault2, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msochpdefault2 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msonormal11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msonormal11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msonormal11 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlink11 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397msohyperlinkfollowed11 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msoacetate11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msoacetate11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msoacetate11 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397heading3char11 {color:#4F81BD;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397emailstyle1911 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397bodyofpaper11 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieauthors-affils11 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397spiepapertitlecharchar11 {font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spiepapertitle11 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;font-size:16.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitlecharchar11 {text-transform:uppercase;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstracttitle11 {margin-top:24.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;font-size:11.0pt;text-transform:uppercase;font-weight:bold;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397spieabstractbodytext11 {margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 p.yiv4730905397msochpdefault11, #yiv4730905397 li.yiv4730905397msochpdefault11, #yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397msochpdefault11 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397emailstyle471 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4730905397 span {}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397EmailStyle72 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv4730905397 span.yiv4730905397BalloonTextChar {}#yiv4730905397 .yiv4730905397MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 filtered {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv4730905397 div.yiv4730905397WordSection1 {}#yiv4730905397 David, where did I exclude a scalar field?I was only saying that the picture of a knot made out of an isotropic fibration is simpler than that of an electromagnetic fibration.A fibration is a lot of fibers “rays”  stacked together. Even if these are isotropic themselves, the whole thing can be twisted, look at a thich cable and the strands in it. Can be complicated.If the rays or strands or fibers are themselves orientable, complexity is even higher.Only the simplest knots can, if built from orientable fibers, make up a large spectrum of particles…Cheers, Martin  Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548 

From: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: donderdag 28 mei 2015 10:56
To: Mark, Martin van der; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations Mark I'll accept that even a simple loop can be a knot. It's not clear to me yet that for all particles in the Standard Model that particles are described by topological knots or need to be that complex.  I'm hesitant to use just a six-vector field without a scalar field. However, one must start somewhere. Perhaps this hesitation is because I'm partial to deBroglie-Bohm and not behold to the Heaviside simplification of Maxwell's original twenty equations. While I think Dirac remedied the situation, and Schroedinger provided zbw as a nice qualification, I'm still not satisfied that one has to give up a scalar field. I have wondered about the success of toroidal antennas as a conditioner of EM waves since both photonic and electronic waves share similar wave-particle properties and effects. See for example, Barrett 1998, The Toroid Antenna as a Conditioner of Electromagnetic Fields into (Low Energy) Gauge Fieldsor the book...Barrett 2008, Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism. Best David   

From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:18 AM
Subject: RE: [General] Force Equations Dear David, John DFirst, thanks John D for the examples you have sent in the mean time.David, there is in my mind no difference between the PBE and a knot, I think the knot is made of light, essentially.Note however that the pictures of the knots that John D presented are mad of isotropic rope (you may actually call it string, but that will be confused with string theory)Electromagnetism is a  six-vector field, not a scalar field, and hence any twists will change the local properties of the orientable rope. This is one of the reasons why John W and I use a strip to model the electron in our ’97 paper.Models are a first step, and are at the level of the Bohr atom. Nice but descepive. A model at the level of the Schroedinger atom is at leqast required to say what is what, really. Proper theory is a must.So I hope this frees you of some worries…Best, Martin Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548  From: David Mathes [mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: donderdag 28 mei 2015 6:28
To: Mark, Martin van der; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations Mark Perhaps I've been living in California too long for while I am painfully aware of invariance in many ways, I take a Monte Carlo analysis approach looking at "what if" scenarios in an attempt to falsify the invariance. Although variations on the theme of infinite series provide a fair amount of insight at least for small perturbations, I believe that science cannot advance significantly without looking for breakthroughs beyond constants to variables and the foundational assumption of invariance. It's a fine line of investigation bordering on "not even wrong." So there needs to be some reasoning and a bit of a reach but not necessarily to the level of String theory.  If this variable or variance is permitted, how then could this work? Before we get too tied up in knot theories, there is the need to go through the PBE models. I find it curious that in some models there is only positive or negative acceleration to the photon/quanta.  Topologically, the ring torus models are of interest but fail in favor of a horn or spindle torus model. The spindle torus model can be reduced to a line torus where the 3D spindle is reduces to a 1D line. The difficulty is that most torus models so far have been 3D. While I have seen only the mathematical 4D torus, I haven't seen any electron model described as such so far. A 5D phase-space solution (General Relativity + 1D phase space) can be reduced to 4 vector. In both the 4D and 5D models, the potential issues of coherent states, asymptotic freedom, and other anomalies become a challenge. I'm still looking at Glauber states in the PBE models. One assumption that I make - which I admit may be wrong -  is that any charged particle has an exclusive volume. That is, a negatively charge quark cannot occupy the volume defined by the electron. If the electron absorbs the quark, it's not clear what the sum would be since even the absorption may be partial. Mass would change at least transiently; does electric charge change also even if only for a brief moment?  Or could the quark absorption by the electron charge be maintained by simply increasing the magnitude of the E field as in phat photons, the B-field as a separate force, or both. There may be partial charge absorption which would challenge at least charge conservation. The exclusion zone between dissimilar charge particles approach may fall apart for +2/3 charge but not for +1/3 charge or less (-1/3 and -2/3). Published theories on 1/5th and 1/7th charge would also need to be reviewed. Then there are weak interactions between photon and electron where the electric field penetrates the electron radius as a part of wavelet. String theory is a big reach. Given that the LHC is having difficulties with establishing any sign of SUSY and string theory cannot be experimentally verified in the foreseeable future, the focus remains on the nearest solid ground which includes for better or worse, elementary particles with attendant CPT violations, and quantum field theory, both of which have renormalization issues. So I'm looking forward to seeing the various papers. Best Regards, David From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations David,This paper is philosophical, with mathematics to support the line if thought. It shows why, based on energy balance and total mass, there cannot be any independent stabile structures smaller than the proton. String theory and planck-scale physics are a likely waste of time.Another paper will deal with the complete theory of electromagnetic knots and quantum mechanics, it is now half finished. I may have explicit solutions to show at the conference in august.John W and I also have a very nice paper on division in the space-time algebra and invariants that still needs some revision, but I will complete that too.Regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 mei 2015 om 19:42 heeft David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> het volgende geschreven: 
Martin "... a light speed knot of energy" That phrase has a nice ring to it.  I look forward to your paper. Does the paper address the topological construction of the light speed energy (LSE) knot? If the knot can be desribed parametrically, even better! David 
From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations Hi David,You have said the word: scalability!Very important indeed. Paper [9570-53], SPIE Optics + Photonic, San Diego, 9-13 August 2015 On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces  Martin B. van der Mark*Philips Research Europe, WB-21, HTC 34, 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsAbstractFrom super clusters of galaxies down to the quarks in the proton, at all length scales the structure of matter is the result of a balance of forces. In this paper we show that with decreasing size there is an increase of the fraction of kinetic and binding energy with respect to the total energy. Smaller sizes require stronger forces which represent more of the energy available. The smallest possible size of granularity is found where the internal and total energy become comparable, which occurs at the size of the proton. We infer that the proton is the smallest stable particle with structure, being a light speed knot of energy.The paper is virtually finished and 15 pages long.So we will be able to discuss and enjoy this point extensively.Best regards, Martin Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: woensdag 27 mei 2015 7:19
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations Richard The conjecture is that the parametric equations for photon-based electrons can be used as the basis to describe other particles and extended to all Standard Model particles.  This mathematical physics approach proposes a parameter-based topology that may be useful as a tool in extending the Standard Model and perhaps explaining CPT violations. However, group theory and in particular Lie groups at least to the form of U(1)XSU(2)X SU(3) is related to the topological circulating photon/quanta models. (PBE). Now, I am quite familiar with your parametric sets of equations which come in three types: Newtonian, Relativistic and Transluminal sets. In this paper a roadmap is laid out for exploring a parametric topological description of each elementary particle. Each parameter within the equations can be varied.  While some may perceive this as a quest for the smallest particle or the ultimate "atom" with such questions as what's inside the electron, what's inside the photon and what's inside the quanta, such an approach only addresses one dimension common ignored, scalability.  In any electron model theory, nature has thrown fields into the mix, something not easily defined in the Standard Model. Perhaps a topologcal view might provide insights to combining Quantum Field Theory with the Standard Model.  Best David   
From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations David,   And of course Chip has a double-looped photon model of the electron, composed of a charged photon.      Richard  
On May 26, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote: 
David,  see your referenced quote.   In the present company, Vivian proposes a double-looped electron which is charged, confined and contained (is there a difference?) and whose radius falls as 1/gamma.  John W and Martin proposed (1997) a double-looped photon model of the electron where the photon is uncharged (the effective electron’s charged is at the center of their model of a resting electron) and the energy of a moving electron falls off as 1/gamma. I propose a  generic double-looped charged photon that forms an electron where the trajectory of the moving electron falls off as 1/ gamma^2, but whose photon radius from its trajectory may depend on the specific model of the photon and for the TEQ model of the photon falls off as 1/gamma, which dominates 1/gamma^2 at high electron velocities. Is this the current batch of electron theories you are referring to or are there others on your list? Only Vivian’s and my double-looping photon's are charged in this list. (I know of other related models, like Hestenes' zitter model (though he doesn’t identify the helical light-speed charge in his electron model with a photon, and Rivas’s model, which is similar to that of Hestenes — it is also not a double-loop charged photon model. Oliver Consa in Spain has a 2014 article “A helical model of the electron” at   http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203 which is a double-loop photon model (charged as I remember) which references the Williamson- van der Mark paper. An article by Grahame Blackwell on the closed-loop particle formation by photon is at http://www.transfinitemind.com/cosmicasymmetry.htm . I’m not sure if his circulating photon is charged or not. Also I’m not sure where John M’s electron model fits into this picture.    You are assuming (below) that the photon is massless or has a perhaps very small mass. You are referring to the commonly known photon. But a charged photon would not necessarily be massless. In my model, the charged photon modeling an electron has the rest mass of the electron.       Richard

David: The current batch of electron theories suggest that photons are confined, contained, and charged to form an electron. So a linear path photon undergoes a transformation to a curved path charged photon that behaves like the electron. However, the photon is massless and the electron has a clearly defined mass. Perhaps we cannot measure the photon mass because it's so small. After all, if there is any mass to the photon, then it might be possible to lower the mass even further and create the massless particle. 


On May 26, 2015, at 5:05 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote: Dear David and Martin,This exchange has just challenged me to re-examine some of my thinking.Based on the paper that I will write for the conference (and another one* that I just submitted to arXiv and will submit to a journal), I will be proposing that mass and charge are expressions of the same thing (not just both having energy). However, in a photon, the net charge is zero, but it has alternating fields (concentrated locally over an extended photon length). If the 'charge' reflected in the waves is alternating, does not the mass also alternate? But, if it alternates + and - (to give a net-zero mass), how can the photon have inertia and momentum? How can it be measured when captured in Martin's box? I now have to assume that the mass must be related to the square (or absolute value) of the charge. Is this not close to what John M. has proposed? Actually, the energy is proportional to the square of the fields, so this would be a natural conclusion that might be independent of John M.s model. But it does address, at least partially, the nature of mass of a photon.Since I have shown in the papers that relativistic mass is EM field energy, there are other implications as well. Andrew* I think that I posted an earlier draft of this. But, here is the latest version.___________________________________________ On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Mark, Martin van der<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:Dear David,Light has mass, it is always the same: m=E/c^2 = hbar*omega or m=p/c=hbar*k. If it hits you, you will notice its momentum, hence its mass. Only if you put it in a box you will really be able to experience the mass as gravitational, see “light is heavy” for a proper explanation of the relativistic facts and confusions. The reason is that with the box around it cannot fly away so that you will not be able to interact with it to actually notice the mass.The experiments you mention do just that: making a box.Regards, Martin Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548 From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: dinsdag 26 mei 2015 6:29
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations John M., Andrew et al If the gravitational component stops oscillating, then the non-oscillating component might provide insight into a stopped or frozen photon. Does the Poynting vector disappear if there is no oscillation? That is, is the Poynting vector frequency dependent?  To examine this point, perhaps we need to move up to four-vector or full tensor at least for the theory So far, photon-defined electron theories assume zero for the rest mass for the photon. If the photon has mass, one would expect charge. If there is mass with no charge, we have some explaining to do. And better measurement of mass is required. So, if we could stop the photon and measure the mass - no matter how small but greater than zero - should we expect charge? The current batch of electron theories suggest that photons are confined, contained, and charged to form an electron. So a linear path photon undergoes a transformation to a curved path charged photon that behaves like the electron. However, the photon is massless and the electron has a clearly defined mass. Perhaps we cannot measure the photon mass because it's so small. After all, if there is any mass to the photon, then it might be possible to lower the mass even further and create the massless particle.  If we could stop a photon and then restart the photon, one would expect the photon to continue on it's original vector.   There are at least two papers where photons have been stopped or frozen. In the following experiment, light was stopped for about one minute. This store-and-forward photon may be the basis of future quantum computing and communications systems. Then a few years later, a photon was "frozen" with an opaque crystal. To me, this trapping sounds like a squeezed state or a Glauber state. Stopped Light and Image Storage by Electromagnetically Induced Transparency up to the Regime of One Minutehttp://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.033601http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=13459 Sept 8, 2014 Observation of a Dissipation-Induced Classical to Quantum Transitionhttp://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.031043http://www.princeton.edu/engineering/news/archive/?id=13459 The mechanisms for stopping or freezing light aren't fully understood which may include CPT violation or other anomalies. One possibility is the photon is in a squeezed state or a Glauber coherence state. If chirality suffers, the we have a parity violation resulting in CP or PT violations since CPT violations come in pairs. If charge is created by this stopped photon, is mass created? Then we have CP and CT as options.  Photons are normally considered to be non-stop particles. However, in these two cases they appear more as direct flight particles with zero mass that when released continue on.  Does a trapped photon have any rest mass?  How would a photon with a rest mass affect the photon-electron relationship?  Best David   From: Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Force Equations Dear John M.,

You may be saving me a lot of work. I was planning on working on super-gravity this year and was basing it on energy-density-induced non-linearities. You may have solved the problem, or at least laid the ground work, before I ever get to it. Your statement "... gravitational waves require spacetime to have the specifiedenergy density... ," is definitely pushing in the right direction. General Relativity is concerned about mass. At the basic level, it is mass/energy density that controls the interactions. This goes to the nuclear levels, i.e., below the region of validity for QM as we know it.

Your study of the various ratios, and the identification of relationships leads to a whole field of information that is to easy to overlook without your signposts.

Good luck,

Andrew_________________________________________________________
However, I have also had two other major successes which I will briefly mention here.  In the future I will dedicate a separate email to each of these other subjects.  First, my son Jim,  has generated computer simulations which show various characteristics of my particle model. Since my model quantifies frequency, amplitude and impedance, my models actually represent calculated effects.  I might be able to send some computer simulations tomorrow.   Another success is that I can now show that my model of fundamental particles gives new insights into the electric field and the gravitational field generated by an electron or other fundamental particle.  I previously concluded that an electron’s electric field contains both a non-oscillating strain of spacetime that produces most of the effects we associate with the electric field.  However, there is also an oscillating distortion of spacetime at the electron’s Compton frequency.  We know the energy density of an electron’s electric field, the frequency and the impedance of spacetime, so we can calculate the amplitude of the wave required to produce the known energy density of the electron’s electric field.  This amplitude exactly corresponds to the expected magnitude and distribution expected from my particle model.  The new gravitational insight is: I can now prove that gravity also has both a non-oscillating component that produces curved spacetime and an oscillating component that implies that a gravitational field also has energy density.  When you compare the energy density of a gravitational field to the “interactive energy density of spacetime”, it is possible to see how the combination produces the curved spacetime. The document attached above is a few pages out of the revised version of my book.  These pages contain some recently added information and some older information which was partly covered in a previous attachment.  However, I decided to include some of that older information also since it sets the stage for the new information.  I had to start somewhere, so the attachment starts in the middle of the book.  Even though there is a vast amount of missing information, I think that you will be able to get the key points from the attachment.      My approach based on spacetime allows much more detailed analysis than the rest of the group because I start with specific properties of spacetime which can be quantified.  I have dipole waves in spacetime which have specific frequencies, produce specific displacements of space and time and have dimensionless strain amplitudes which can be quantified.  Combining this with the impedance of spacetime and some equations that I have developed, it is possible to calculate particle size, energy, energy density, forces, etc.  Most important, the approach predicts that the particles (called “rotars) can generate three forces which correspond to the strong force, the electromagnetic force and gravity. In a previous post I gave some equations which showed previously unknown relationship between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force that were derived from my model.  Now I have generated more equations which specify the relationship between the electrostatic force and the gravitational force produced by fundamental particles such as an electron.  The attached document is 5 pages.  The last 2 pages are totally new, but even the first 3 pages can be seen in a new light.  You will see that the relationship between the electrostatic force from charge e (designatedFe) and the gravitational force (designated Fg) is independent of the model which made these predictions. However, the equations on the last two pages fit so well with my model, that they become a proof for the model.  John M. 
   <Mass and the Coulomb potential e_p short4.pdf>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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 atdavidmathes8 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> 
 The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atdavidmathes8 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> 


_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atmartin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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 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/20150528/af1879d7/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list