[General] SU(2) equation set

Sun Nov 15 15:47:51 PST 2015

Hello Vivian,
   Congratulations on your new book. Your practical approach to doing development work as well as science is excellent and should continue to work well in the future.
    I published a book https://www.academia.edu/4429940/Microvita_Cosmic_Seeds_of_Life in 1988 through my yoga/meditation group that got me thinking about alternative approaches to scientific understanding, which in a few years led me to the double-looping photon approach to the electron and later to my current thinking about the relativistic spin-1/2 charged photon model of the electron. So sources of ideas can come from many directions. I would be interested to hear how you originated your ideas about particles. And of course the big question remains, what are photons (if they exist) made of (obviously not just pure energy or space-time) that makes them photons and not something else?
    with best regards,
         Richard
 
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at universephysics.com> wrote:
> 
> 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-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:41 AM
>> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> Cc: Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk>>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>;pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>; Nicholas Bailey <Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto: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" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>
>> An: "Nicholas Bailey" <Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>>
>> Cc: "Stephen Leary" <sleary at vavi.co.uk <mailto:sleary at vavi.co.uk>>, "David Williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>, "pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>" <pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto: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. Artifastring <http://percival-music.ca/artifastring/>, a modal physical model written by my ex-postgrad in C++ as the engine behind Vivi <http://percival-music.ca/vivi.html>, 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 swig <http://www.swig.org/> or sip <https://riverbankcomputing.com/software/sip/intro>.
>>  
>> Alternatively, I suppose one could think of starting with Python and extending the functionality of a numeric module such as numpy <http://www.numpy.org/>.
>>  
>> 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 Global Intepreter Lock <https://www.jeffknupp.com/blog/2012/03/31/pythons-hardest-problem/> problem) and if you want to do real heavy duty number crunching on multiple cores, you'd best use C++ with boost <http://www.boost.org/> 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.
>>  
>> simpy/numpy Python framework for interactive calculus:
>> https://github.com/joakimbits/Quflow-and-Perfeco-tools/blob/master/lib/algebra.py <https://github.com/joakimbits/Quflow-and-Perfeco-tools/blob/master/lib/algebra.py> (outdated now but I can fix it to work in Python 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>
>> Usage of DX12 or its up-coming open-source derivates to make rough FEM/numeric calculations on arbitary gpu/cpu platforms.
>> 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 af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> Click here 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 atviv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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 richgauthier 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151115/a11da606/attachment.htm>