[General] SU(2) equation set

Sun Nov 15 04:01:04 PST 2015

Hi Vivian

Thank you.  I am delighted.  I will read your book carefully, and comment in
what I hope to be a very constructive manner.

Your specific approach to this set of puzzles is remarkably similar to mine.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:24 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

Hi Chip and All,

I am going to be brazen enough to suggest that my presentation "Explaining
the Physical Universe" is based upon the "correct foundation". It is based
upon ALL particles being rotating photons, as proposed by John W and Martin
vdM, myself, Richard G and a couple of others for the electron. It is not
mathematically rigorous like the work of John W and Martin vdM. You could
say it assumes John W's work is correct and picks up as if it is accepted.
It relies upon matching experiment and making testable predictions from the
limited mathematics used.

FYI, my mode of operation with science has been to develop a theoretical
understanding of a topic by performing a few measurements in a somewhat
organised manner. I evaluate the results looking for a pattern. When I think
I understand that pattern I make predictions based upon that understanding
and test those predictions. If those predictions were not matched by
experiment, I would modify my approach until it did match. Based upon that
match I have designed and built equipment that world experts said would
never work and made a successful living in the commercial world from it for
over 30 years. I have branched out into a totally unrelated field and
achieved the same results, valuable commercial equipment that the experts
said would never work. I am currently commercialising that work. 

Those exercises have taught me a lot. Be realistic and only use what you
physically have available! Don't believe "experts" unless it makes sense! (I
don't care how eminent they are or from which university they graduated, if
they can't explain it in a simple manner, they don't properly understand
it.) If it needs a complex explanation, or one involving additional
dimensions or undetected particles, it isn't reality. And more.

Having to write advertising literature to get sales on complex
instrumentation and applications to the general consumer, taught me how to
take complex scientific situations and present them in a simple yet
technically accurate manner. For far too long theoreticians have used
complex descriptions and even more complex mathematics to justify their
work. As far as I understand, anyone who understands a complex topic will be
able to explain it in a simple manner. Having said that I am prepared to
agree with almost all of Einstein's work because I believe I understand the
physics behind his special and general theories of relativity, even though
his mathematics was complex. Anybody who questions his special theory of
relativity should make sure they aren't displaying their own lack of
knowledge. As far as his general relativity is concerned, I believe his
"mass distorts space-time giving rise to gravity" is valid. His calculations
are not the only way of calculating gravitational effects. I have used a
different set of calculations to obtain metrics for space-time outside
matter (gravity as we know it) and inside matter (pertaining to the large
scale structure of the universe) because I find metrics easier to handle
than field equations. My metrics match his work in those regions where his
field equations and their metrics have been tested. They predict different
results in those areas where they haven't been tested. I rest my predictions
entirely upon observation and/or experimental measurement and have no
interest in listening to reviewers (anonymous or otherwise) who refuse to
consider work on "theoretical grounds". 

I have observed various participants forwarding their own ideas on the
photon (or otherwise) structure of electrons. New ideas should always be
welcome. They should also be considered ideas. One of the criticisms
standard model physicists use against new ideas is that their ideas match
sub atomic particles with the structure of the universe and many things in
between. Unless you can match those, they are not interested. Explaining the
Physical Universe is a manuscript that presents a continuity between the
very small structure of sub atomic particles and the very large universe. It
is in that manner and relying upon match with experiment, that I hope to
make some inroads against the standard models. I have also tried to give a
physical reason for things to happen, not just applying a correction because
it works. For example I contend that it is the rotating photon structure of
matter that causes matter to be subject to the special relativity
corrections with increasing speed. General relativity effects can be
determined from the principle of conservation of energy. Some quantum
effects are due to the rotating photon model of the structure of the
electron. And so forth.

Applying the rotating photon model to the structure of nucleons enabled a
physical description of the nucleons to be obtained, which description
matches many of the known properties of nucleons and nuclei. As you are
aware, a neutron is a particle from which a proton, electron and
(anti-electron) neutrino can emerge, which will decay if not bound in a
nucleus. At the same time a proton in a nucleus can emit a positron and
(electron) neutrino to become a neutron. IMHO the only way a neutron can
contain a proton, electron  and neutrino and a neutron can contain a
neutron, positron and neutrino is that they are all made of the one
substance (or stuff). I suggest that substance (stuff) is a photon. The
interchangeability between protons, neutrons, electrons and neutrinos
suggests that consideration be given to the structures of those particles
that enables them to interchange. Just a thought.

Enough to that. Chip I will send you a copy of my book. You will find it
explains your following question as to why an electron is stable but muons
and tau's aren't. Leptons aren't double particles orbiting each other around
mutual attraction. They are single oscillation rotating photons. Mesons such
as pions, as well as bosons, the photon excluded" are two single loop
oscillations united in a single particle for a short time period. Etc., etc.
I would like you to have a look at it and would appreciate your thoughts on
it. I don't mind being told I am wrong if my predictions don't match
experiment. Being told I am wrong on theoretical grounds by theoreticians
who accept that  24 times as much mass/energy as astronomers can detect,
plus 10^60 other universes in a multiverse, multiple undetected dimensions,
etc. etc., is of no interest to me. If any others in the group can give me a
good reason, e.g., are an experimental nuclear physicist who could measure
the dimensions and structure of a nucleus, experimental particle physicists,
etc., experimentalists preferred, I have a few copies I will send out. In
return I request you evaluate it for accuracy with experimental observation
and send said evaluation to myself. 

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

PS        I have upgraded my website www.universephysics.com
<http://www.universephysics.com>  a little more to include more extracts
from my book.

On 14/11/2015, at 2:27 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Al

I couldn't agree more.

One thing that observations of the principles of physics has illustrated for
me is that the problems all boil down to very basic and easy to understand
starting principles. 

In this way I agree very much with John Archibald Wheeler when he said."It
is my opinion that everything must be based on a simple idea. And it is my
opinion that this idea, once we have finally discovered it, will be so
compelling, so beautiful, that we will say to one another, "yes, how could
it have been any different?""

There are some questions which might help us in this quest.

When it is difficult and complex to really get the basic concepts to start
with, is it likely we are on the right path? 

Are we really explaining the concepts well? Or is it rather that we MUST
manufacture artificially complex solutions in order to keep the basis we
trust to be correct?

Have we done our job and tested and questioned the foundations upon which we
are building?

Can we expect to build the correct theory from the existing foundations? Or
is it the foundations which are preventing our further understanding?

Is it errors in the foundations which has caused the stagnation in physics?

Is it possible that the proposed solutions are so complex simply because
they are wrong? And again, are they wrong because we have misunderstood some
of the foundational principles of nature?

Is it possible that when we do understand correctly the basic principles of
nature, that the solutions will be much easier, paradox free, coherent, and
quite unified?  I think the answer to this question is a resounding yes.

This is not to say that any specific theory is wrong.  But it is at least a
healthy approach to attempt to keep us well founded in our quest. But it
takes work.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-
<mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf
Of  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:41 AM
To:  <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Stephen Leary < <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> sleary at vavi.co.uk>; Mark,
Martin van der < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion < <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>
pete at leathergoth.com; David Williamson < <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>; Nicholas Bailey <
<mailto:Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk> Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

Hi:

If I may, I'd like to stick a word here in.  For the record (as is said):
I'm not up to speed, although I've given it a once-over.  

In the past, goofy, incomplete, mystical Physics theories have resulted from
faulty or contradictory or inapproporate (and usually also covert-implicit)
input.  Then the theory get developed, embelished, expanded, partially
verified and what not until its "too big to fail"!  An antidote for this
syndrom is FIRST to produce a proposal or schimatic "for dummies."  One that
"your mother could understand."  It's hard to produce these things, because
one has to return to a stage of understanding, so as to speak to a 'dummy'
on his level. that the typical proponent has long left behind.  But the
great advantage is that, it is hard to fudge the basic inputs on the basis
of known, but sophisticated knowledge, information that in principle should
not be referenced or input at the initial level, so as to keep the logic
clean.

If this step is ommited, and you are very lucky (at first!), you may find
yourself way, way, out on the limb with a lot of *** on your face!

For what it is worth, Al   

Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 14:57 Uhr
Von: "John Williamson" < <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
An: "Nicholas Bailey" < <mailto:Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>
Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>
Cc: "Stephen Leary" < <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk> sleary at vavi.co.uk>, "David
Williamson" < <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>,
"Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com" <
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com>, "Mark, Martin van der"
< <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

Dear everyone,

Chip - your background is ideal. I always tell my aero students (I teach
them a maths course) - that they will have a better skill set than
physicists or mathematicians for solving differential equations because
fluid mechanics is (relatively) hard, compared to mere Maxwell or QM (even
relativistic QM!). Also the algebra (The space-time algebra (STA)- Cl(1,3))
is a kind of 4D extension of the quaternion algebra (which it contains as a
sub-algebra). This is not to say it will be easy for you - there are
concepts in there which will still make your head explode.

First of these is: the quaternion algebra is a division algebra (technically
a division ring). The STA is not. This is both a problem and a solution. It
is a problem in that there are limits where differentiation explodes. It is
a solution in that division has implicit scalings (for which we need Martin
and my paper on division) which allow (sorry -force!) extra constraints
which are required - as the Maxwell equations alone) are under-constrained.
Same is true for ordinary QM by the way - as one needs (at least) an extra
external normalisation condition. Note, for example, that my eq 21 does not
contain one - it is self-quantised.

Coming back to the code. I'm delighted that you professionals don't really
seem to mind on which platform it runs. My preference would be for Python,
or failing that something I could, at least read, like C. Object-oriented
stuff makes my poor old head hurt!

Hmm on speed ... fast is good of course, but I think i would rather it was
clever. What I am looking for is generating solutions to the particle
spectrum. I have an analytic solutions for the photon, and a candidate one
for the electron and the positron.  This would allow for testing of the
numerical program in those cases. In the first instance a numerical system
would look to parallel these.

What is needed further is a model for the quarks (I think I know how to do
this, as I talked about first at CYBCOM 2008) and the interactions between
them. Also one needs a model for the neutrinos - and how they propagate.
Martin and I have some ideas for this - but there is room for (a lot of)
development here. The best thing would be to get all of us into a room and
not come out till we had a specification. I think we need a week in the
first instance. Starting with me and Martin teaching you about how things
work! Despite the existing papers, email back and forwards is just going to
be inadequate

To brass tacks: a good starting point (even better than Stephen's code - as
it is more extensive) for the algebra input is Martin's 16 by 16 matrix.

The second thing is a sharing of the division algebra paper (are we ready
for this Martin?). This is a second-level thing though - and not needed for
the first steps in the photon solution.

Anyway Stephen and Martin - this is down to you guys to decide whether or
not (and how much) of this stuff you want to make public.

The next is the development of a proper "grid". A merely spatial (xyz) grid
is not going to hack this. Indeed, it will be counter productive since it
imposes a form which is just too simple (and one is already lost). What the
4-vector differential actually DOES (in terms of process - per differential)
is transform a set of eight even terms (the fields, root-mass and
quadrivector) to a set of odd terms (the currents and the angular momenta)
and vice -versa. The constraint here is that the process must be UNITARY.
This means going to transformations (in terms of process) from an eight
degree of freedom system to another eight degree of freedom system, using
unitary differential transformations. 8D to 8D then. Not for the
faint-hearted! Any "motion" or "oscillation" is really a transformation
between these sets. I have invented a mathematics to try to think about
this, based on fundamental process. I cannot email it to you as it is
symbolic. It could be implemented (I think) as a process in a program. I
anyway do not want to just "give it away", publically. Best method to teach
it in the first instance is on a whiteboard!

The final step, however, is that everything must project back onto a grid on
which one can measure it. That is 3D space and time - the basis set.

That is it. The process should parallel the process observed in reality -
and project onto the basis of what may be measured. Hopefully, then, what is
observed parallels what is simulated.

That brings me to a second question. Are we going to make the code and the
process public or private? If private, under the "ownership" of what body?
There are a few considerations here. Firstly, I noted recently that there is
a prize for the solutions of a set of problems in mathematics - the Clay
prizes. Solve one, win a million (dollars - i think). I got fairly excited,
because I thought I may be able to solve one of them with (aspects of) the
new maths. I phoned Nick Bailey for help - and he and I had a session last
Saturday. Upshot of that was - no - probably cannot solve it in short order
- partly because the way the question is formulated is on an un-realistic
basis. Best that can be hoped for is to suggest "oracle" like solutions to
particular practical problems.  Another problem has to do with the "momentum
gap" in Yang-Mills theories. Again - cannot solve this directly (as
Yang-Mills - though close to the truth - are themselves unphysical - in my
view) - but should be able to solve the ACTUAL underlying problem - so
(morally) should win that one (if we can do it)). Also, if we have code
modelling both light and matter, one can begin to think about simulating
molecules and crystals - and hence inventing new materials, devices and
systems. That can be very lucrative!

My usual feeling is that all code should be open - but if there is serious
money to be made down the line, which we could put into a foundation for the
support and training of young international scientists, for example, then I
would like to do that.

Anyway - the good news is that Hilbert once said that physics was getting to
hard for the physicists. If we can solve one or two of the Clay prizes that
will tend to show that maths just got too hard for the mathematicians!

Regards, John.

  _____  

From: Nicholas Bailey
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 11:21 AM
To: John Williamson
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mark, Martin van
der; Stephen Leary; Joakim Pettersson
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

Do you want it to be fast?

Python is fast (and fun!) to write but slow to run. Although actually, not
that slow.  <http://percival-music.ca/artifastring/> Artifastring, a modal
physical model written by my ex-postgrad in C++ as the engine behind
<http://percival-music.ca/vivi.html> Vivi, the virtual violinist, actually
ran faster when bound to Python than when linked to a larger C++ program! I
didn't look into why. Curious.

Anyway, if you want fast, I'd write in C++ with as much built-in operator
overloading as you can so that you can read your own code. You can test that
to hell, then pull it in to Python using  <http://www.swig.org/> swig or
<https://riverbankcomputing.com/software/sip/intro> sip.

Alternatively, I suppose one could think of starting with Python and
extending the functionality of a numeric module such as
<http://www.numpy.org/> numpy.

The other advantage of having at least the possibility of running C++
instead of Python is that Python doesn't support threads (because of the
<https://www.jeffknupp.com/blog/2012/03/31/pythons-hardest-problem/> Global
Intepreter Lock problem) and if you want to do real heavy duty number
crunching on multiple cores, you'd best use C++ with
<http://www.boost.org/> boost or something like that. Boost is proposed to
be included in the standard library in C++17 anyway.

Nick/.

On Thursday 12 November 2015 13:37:03 John Williamson wrote:

Firstly need to implement a system with primitive operations which parallel
the workings of the space-time algebra. Multiplications, divisions and
differentiations in particular.  It would be nice if such a framework
existed already, but I do not think so. Stephen has written a suite in
PYTHON to deal with the multiplications, which may be a start. Not sure what
is best here: C++?, Python?, Something else?

Hi John and Martin,

I am thrilled with the opportunities now when John has raised the funding
question and Chip finally took a dive into the math and calculus!
Hope it stays at that level or continues to the next!

Some things I believe I could be most helpful with in your work are listed
below. Tell me what to do and I will work free on it a few hours a week, odd
week numbers. I could also offer my services more intensively as a
consultant if that is an option. My normal tariff is 850 SEK/h (pretty
standard in Sweden) and I only charge for productive time (not setting up
tools, training, coffe-breaks etc). Likewise goes for my collegues at Join
Business and Technology AB where there are few people that already work with
FEM modeling and simulations regularly.

1.	simpy/numpy Python framework for interactive calculus:
2.
<https://github.com/joakimbits/Quflow-and-Perfeco-tools/blob/master/lib/alge
bra.py>
https://github.com/joakimbits/Quflow-and-Perfeco-tools/blob/master/lib/algeb
ra.py (outdated now but I can fix it to work in Python 3)
3.	Ejs Java framework for interactive 2D-3D simulations (and a clever
web interface):  <http://www.um.es/fem/EjsWiki/Main/ExamplesLorentzForce>
http://www.um.es/fem/EjsWiki/Main/ExamplesLorentzForce
4.	Usage of DX12 or its up-coming open-source derivates to make rough
FEM/numeric calculations on arbitary gpu/cpu platforms.
5.	I could also bring my dual quad-core 32GB RAM server online if it
helps.

Which calculus framework are you experimenting with today? I used to work in
Mathematica, Matlab and Mathcad but nowadays I use Python or Jython for
pretty much everything.

Best regards,
/Joakim

Hi John W.

Some of my background is in aerodynamic simulation, where I have written
more than 500K lines of 'C' code and created one of the world's most
accurate real-time simulations of flight. Lots of use of quaternions and
fluid mechanics of course.

I have written code in many different languages, so practically any we
choose will work for me.

In order to start we will need to do as you suggest and look at the
fundamentals to create a library of functions we can call as required.

So if I can look at Stephen's Python code for multiplications that would
help me get a handle on how to write the division and differentiation low
level code.

Some personal experience and observations.

Object oriented code generally takes more time to design and runs a little
slower, but it protects and manages the data and functions operating on the
data as individual objects. Object oriented code generally uses more memory
as well. Computation time, and memory capacity, are really critical for us
because of the tremendous computational load it will take to do the
simulation at any useful scale. So when we were writing flight simulation
code, which had to compute all the forces and moments in real time, at about
120 times a second, we wrote it all in 'C'.  I am bringing this up because
even now, when I am doing physics modeling, which is much simpler than the
task at hand, I often have to wait an hour for the results from our fairly
large and very fast workstations here in the office. It would be nice to
create the simulation in the fastest running code we can, so that we have
some hope of getting results in reasonable time, without having to rent
expensive time on, or build a supercomputer.

But those opinions are not as important as getting the foundation in place
so we can start doing some real work in simulating particles, and
interactions.  Exciting stuff.

Chip

_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
Discussion List at  <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> Click here
to unsubscribe

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
viv at universephysics.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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/20151115/e5df6008/attachment.htm>