[General] Reply of comments from what a model.

[John Williamson]

Dear Chip,

Of course. Answers in blue.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 11:32 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model.
Hi John W

A few questions.

If a field theory is complete and correct (beyond EM) then wouldn’t it predict…
1.      The exact value for the elementary charge, (not 91% of the elementary charge)

This is the semi-classical calculation from the (now more than 20 year old) model. The fact that  a semi-classical calculation is so close - and assuming (as it does that) the electromagnetic field is all concentrated at precisely the eye of the torus (which it most certainly is not) - is amazing. As I say in the latest paper this is the MINIMUM charge. As one moves from a line distribution ( still a singularity – though not as bad as a point singularity) to something more extended it increases (quite slowly) through the charge observed. Fine .. one could presume it expanded as a Gaussin about the eye and use this to FIX the size but, as Martin said in an earlier thread – so what? IT cannot be a Gaussian as there is simple more room outside the eye than inside .... To get this properly right one needs to calculate what that distribution should be -that requres a solution of the full set of coupled linear differential equations - numerical modelling as in the Maxwell equations - but harder. Numereical modelling of the self-confined field equatuions Field equations which make their own box – which one also has to calculate self-consistently. This is not easy and one cannot look it up in a book- yet! Remember there was over a decade, with all the worlds best scientists on the problem, from the Bohr model to solutions of the hydrogen atom in quantum mechanics. To get the simplest corrections took the whole of them another decade or so. Some of the greatest minds alive are still trying to puzzle through some of this a century later.

2.      And the exact magnetic moment of the electron, (without anomaly)

You are missing the point here: the value from Dirac for the gyromagnetic ratio is 2. That is 2.0000000 ….  What is observed , experimentally, is a tiny difference on top of this (of the order of one part in a thousand).  That is the "anomalous magnetic moment".  It is not anomalous because it is wrong. It is anomolous because it is right! Experimentally.  Theory needs to predict this. Martin and my semi-classical model gives BOTH the base factor of 2 AND the correction. In other words it fits the experimental value to within one part in a thousand, which the Dirac model (for example) simply does not.

3.      And exactly why the electron is so stable, (what causes this specific resonance)

That is easy. It is the lightest re-circulating particle. There is nothing for it to decay to and conserve the flow.  It is a vortex in momentum space. Vorticity - in every space and medium - is conserved.  It is the (momentum space) vorticity that leads to both the (quantum) spin and the charge. Put in the more conventional way: it has half-integral spin and charge. Charge and spin are absolutely conserved. To decay to something it would need to go to a lighter spin half charged particle. There isn't one.

4.      Likewise why the proton is so stable,

Likewise: no lighter particle with an internal SU(3) flow. Simple.

5.      And following on that, predict the exact masses and instabilities (decay rates) of Muon and Tau?

Again" it does. QED gets these exactly right and the new theory derives the starting point for QED. Q.E.D.
I have used QED (in the past) to calculate not merely the rates, but also the radiative corrections on the muon for its running coupling to other events (the muon and electron charges are not precisely fixed but become effectively slightly larger at high relative speeds). It works. Precisely. To as many decimal places as can be measured in any experiment – so far as is known at present.

6.      Not to mention specifically show the exact cause for the fine structure constant?

Again you misunderstand. The fine structure constant IS the charge: just expressed in dimensionless units. Calculate the charge and you calculate the fine structure constant.

Do your field equations do all this? Accurately?

YES!

I am not trying to diminish your work in any way. In my opinion your work is quite amazing and getting very close.

I think (in my personal and unimportant opinion) that you are close but still have a little bit wrong. And of course I could be the one who is wrong.  But either way, I still think the above items and more are expected from a new field equation theory if it is really correct in illustrating nature.

Dear Chip. Thank you. I have always been at least a little bit wrong, and always will be. Let us say we are both a little bit wrong huh? I am sure that there remain things that are "wrong" with the new theory as well - just not the things you are currently worried about. In particular I think that the underlying maths should be left and not right handed. I fear the only way to find out is to do a couple of hundred years man years of work. A couple of hundred years, that is, where the "men" are the calibre of Einstein and Dirac (and Schroedinger and de Broglie and so on ...)  all those guys who started to piece together the solutions to (the far simpler) quantum mechanics in the (decades of the) early years.
Even on simple old QM everyone is still arguing (mostly ignorantly) about "what it means" a hundred years later! Just look at the recent threads! All of those arguments I have seen a hundred times before, reflected in many published papers. If you want to scare yourself on the subject of the major discussion on this forum recently just look at the wider literature ( Richard Gill is a good starting point on non-locality for a critique of nearly everyone else – but his base understanding is no better – was at Utrecht, now at Leiden). Everyone in this field cites poor old dead Bell (justifying this or that contradictory position as coming as works from the oracle-master), but he was a mystified as the rest too. Just try reading it in the original! I agree with Al here – most of the discussion is just uninformed. I do not think any of it really matters anyway – experiment does what it does and we will only get through it when we REALLY understand QM – at which point the whole field becomes redundant anyway. My impression is that most workers in the field do not even get ordinary QM properly.

If the answers to the questions above are all “yes” then I have missed quite a bit while reading your work, and need to study it with great vigor.

Chip, it does not just need "studying". I have not calculated all the answers. It is not so that one refines and refines, writes and re-writes possible routes to the truth of the basis equations and then Eureka – once one has them (I hope!), all the solutions fall out like hitting the jackpot. It is easy to write down things hard to solve using Newton’s laws (the three-body problem!). At the moment there are still only me and Martin working on this - and we have to squeeze this in around day jobs that take most of our time (and more and more of, in my case). I am no mathematician - I have little or no skill in even analytic methods, let alone in finite element methods (the kind of thing needed to find particular SOLUTIONS of the new equations - with the distributions – needed to calculate such things as the charge exactly). This is hard and I am getting old. It has taken decades of my life just to get to this point. I need help!

It also derives the de Broglie relation (in all frames Albrecht, and others by the way – though I have no time or energy left to deal with your detailed  remarks as these are essentially problems with other theories and I am getting tired with and mired in explaining simple things – Viv has given some of the proper references – read these if you like), contains both ordinary QM and (free space) and Maxwell. It has the same structure as the Dirac equation, but fixes the problems with it to do with the mass and the (too simple) introduction of a merely U(1) electromagnetic field. It derives, and underpins the basis of QED. Given this, I must say I am surprised (and a bit disappointed) there has been little or no discussion about this, but just some chat about long-standing problems rooted in simple relativity and quantum mechanics.

With great respect and warmest regards

Chip

Regards to you too,

John.



From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 1:33 AM
To: davidmathes8 at yahoo.com; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…


________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com> [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 11:01 PM
To: Hodge John; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
John H

For the walking drops, I agree that if EM is not part of the solution, there most likely will be major issues.

Yes, there appears to be another level to the particle-wave universe underneath the elementary particle layer. Can we distinguish whether the electron is photonc or quanta, or did the photon morph, transmute or transform into something other than a photon. My gut says all of us should be hammering on building another layer.

David this is exactly what the new theory is ! Another layer. I am not making the electron from photons or the photon from electrons any more! Is this wrong? Have you read the new theory papers yet? The electron and photon are both derived therein from a DEEPER level than either, just as you seem to want.

At the same time, this won't happen from the photonic electron but require an understanding of quarks and perhaps neutrinos and gluons. And that conjecture is based on the assumption that we know the essentials of elementary particles to do so.

Yes. So that is what we need to do. I know ALL about gluons and quarks - have written analytic programs using that theory. Had those programs used by professionals for years (they may still be using them!). Have proposed and had performed (VERY expensive) experiments to "test" the theory. It fails every time. Forget about it, it is just not good enough! Experiment excludes it. End of story.

As a useful tool for physicists, Popper falsification allows some heavy filtering of ideas, conjectures and musings. My view is that falsification by one experiment raises the bar fairly high but does not permanently block that line of reasoning no matter how ill conceived, conjectured or even fantasized which is more of a mathematicians approach. A lot more rigorous work will be required to refute falsification of an experiment.

Fantasy is just fine. Fantasise if you want to.

Statistically,  if the experiment has been done correctly and not misinterpreted, the odds and therefore the risk of repeating the experiment go up if only for research budget purposes. In order to challenge a falsification, the history and context of assumptions, and boundary conditions need to be clearly understood for the experiment, the theory the experiment is testing, and the equipment being used.

Can we falsify whether it's EM or E&M? The physicists seem to say EM while the engineer says E&M.

Not so: I am an engineer and I say it is EM and more.

The simple fact is that under certain conditions E and M are closely coupled. There are two views that are possible: EM and E&M.  EM is one, united and inseparable. The other is that E&M are to be treated as separable and closely coupled under certain conditions (photon) .

There is no simple dichotomy - it is simply more complicated than either.

 Now, both views rely on the same equations whether they be the  Maxwell 20 (original), Maxwell Heaviside (4), Dirac symmetric version- or Barrett extensions - SU(N).  Each can be expressed mathematically by in vector, tensor, differential or quaternion forms.

Problem remains: these are all Yang-Mills. There is a million quid waiting for anyone that fixes this. Lets just do tyhat instead huh!

Given that a mainstream approach seriously limits inquiry by a fear of exceeding the speed of light, the uncertainty of measurement, and the strong doubt cast by the shadow of Popper falsifiability, one is left to wonder if physicists have painted themselves and the rest of science into a corner.

Speed of light is not the problem. Understanding is.

What is puzzling to me is that Dirac equations predicted successfully antimatter (positron) but to date, the monopole has not emerged in experiments. Can the monopole be falsified? Can the quark?

Yes they both can. Magnetic monopole is energetically excluded (it just decays to an electric monopole). Also the Dirac equation says nothing about either charge or magnetic monopole charge (where my new equations do). Have you studied the Dirac model?  Physical quarks are neither required nor observed.

Then again, despite various theories, for elementary particles there remains one key question..."what is the source of charge".

What I do not understand is why you think we, collectively, have not already got to the source of charge. That is what the "nature of the photon and electron" paper is about. Where do you think I have gone wrong?

Essentially, an experimenter "...has got to know their limits." (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry).

Make my day!

"Subtle is the Lrd." A Einstein

Very very subtle indeed!

YMMV

Best regards

David

Cheers, John.



________________________________
From: Hodge John <jchodge at frontier.com<mailto:jchodge at frontier.com>>
To: "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Sent: Sunday, November 8, 2015 11:05 AM
Subject: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…

David
Thanks for the thought.
You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thought Popper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to be falsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolution cannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? But evolution did predict fossils of evolving species would be found.
A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis) theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology reject each other in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that the inability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the model is supposed to apply is cause for rejection. A “null” result is a “no test” done result. For example, Galileo tried to find parallax in stars to support the heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble with the Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax and heliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of the Michelson–Morley experiment.

(see also John W comment where he agrees with David) The deviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergent properties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate of hidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, the finding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a new model. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Until that is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass, inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification is needed but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic.

I’m unsure of your interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effect measurement of energy vs frequency (slope h) to have steps in the linear relationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of an inbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. That is it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.


Richard
Thanks
In my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the waves. The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the underlying tension of the molecules.

I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. If you are you using “wave function” to mean the probability energy density, probability functions don’t “guide”. However, I suggest (and I think Bohm does, too) the the pilot wave is real and the \Psi ^* \Psi is a characteristic of the pilot wave and not a probability function. The nest step is to suggest what the \Psi^* is in reality. Photons need a property of coherence for diffraction to occur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation is suggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference pattern is noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electrons and photons.


John W

The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. The statement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other models have similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where is the energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve no net gain or loss.

I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at a time or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibility that the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be the result of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses.

I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematical parameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’m unsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar or vector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar model because the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. The electromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents of the universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous and matter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explaining electromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.

Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it does produce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristics of the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not be one of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think a model based on electromagnetism has difficulty.

“Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogies in the classical realm.

The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant to be \Psi and \Psi*. However, You hit on the same realization I did - that the \Psi* is just the part of a standing wave in the Transaction Interpretation of the wave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wave manifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality” to the \Psi.

Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper to which you are referring.

Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment in my last paper is such an example. It is if it relies upon Huygens-Fresnel.

Thanks for your comments.

Hodge


_______________________________________________
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/20151110/6a5a10d1/attachment.htm>