[General] SU(2) equation set

[Joakim Pettersson]

Hi Al,

If you do generalize electrons to encompass all solutions in a 4D 
relativity space, if would be a very powerful viewpoint change that 
could help us understand the mathematics better in some (perhaps most) 
experiments and observations. That is a very good effort. But it could 
also lead to more missed points, wrong assumptions and screw up the 
underlying mathematical equations so that their solutions become overly 
complex and perhaps even non-finite in other experiments and 
observations. It is like comparing apples and oranges, or flux and 
charge, or location and momentum, or Feynman path integrals and wave 
functions. We always can have both views and others as well. It depends 
on the observer and the experiment which one is more convenient to work 
with for the person interpreting the result.

Hopefully we can some day work with the same underlying mathematics 
whichever basis we choose to describe its solutions in.

Going back and forth between a photo-electron representation and a 
photon representation is IMHO like doing scattering a experiment. We 
need to get rid of both representations and start looking at the 
underlying and common mathematics to understand what is really going on 
in the experiment. Like John. Can we all please agree on that?

If we do at some time agree on the underlying mathematics, there is no 
need to argue for or against a certain basis set - if it is complete 
enough to describe a set of experiments, it is useful for forecasting 
similar experiments. Like string theory - it is good for describing what 
went in and out of a scattering experiment. We probably need to continue 
to use such tricks like that to describe reality until we all have 
quantum computers in our pockets (or brains) to do the analysis with. In 
the meantime, we need to rely on people like John to talk to us like to 
his mother and hope it does make sense to us also ;-).

Best regards,
Joakim


On 2015-11-15 09:28, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> Hi John:
> Some mothers are more erudite than others.  But, erudite mothers 
> matter too!
> Much of what I see in your papers tickles memories of things I once 
> knew rather well regarding differential manifolds, diffential forms, 
> Clifford algebras, etc.  dF=0, for example, written as d²A=0 says that 
> A is an exact form, which gives it lots of nice propeties---and so on 
> and so forth.  This is all very nice, but your terminology appears to 
> me to be distinct from that in math/phys lit on the matter.
> Do you have a paper somewhere that makes the comparison?  Can you 
> start your story in the histrocially conventional notation and then 
> carefully introduce your specaializations so that the known maths 
> consequences of what you'r about can just be looked up rather than 
> rediscovered?
> Likewise, there are giant software packages for Clifford algebra 
> applications in existence.  While not at all easy to jump in and use 
> them, it is still much easier than redoing the whole thing.
> BTW, as one who holds that photons do not exist (just photo electrons) 
> I have grave indigestion over the idea of modeling the electron on the 
> photon!  Seems it ought be the other way around; there is credible 
> empirical evidence for the existence of electrons, where as there is 
> none for photons (distinguished from photo electons!).
> ciao, Al
> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "david williamson" 
> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
> *Cc:* "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>, "Mark, Martin van 
> der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>, "Nicholas Bailey" 
> <Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Yes Al – I could not agree more. We can do better though, as I have 
> said before. I always say to others that, if one truly understands 
> anything, one should be able to explain it at any level. Mums are 
> important!
>
> to unsubscribe 
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at joakimbits at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%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/20151115/6f41fa1b/attachment.htm>