[General] SU(2) equation set

Sun Nov 15 20:11:56 PST 2015

Replies ....
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi Chip:

In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist thinking about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by the sum of all Gaussian 1/r² interactions (with delay, i.e., the Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.).  The Gaussian comes closest to what the interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual or represntational or ....).  The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up of countable electrons. Fields, per se, are never seen, just the resulting photo current

You keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can produce field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other, but both. Sure one can describe a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but it is  severely limited description The "delay" is not magic, but a function of the field propagation rate (the speed of light - the propagation rate of pure fields).

Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!

Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents?

Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously. Just with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?

Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!

 Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect from the timing of various oscillations in the transverse direction.  [I think spin in a photon is actually never seen for a single photo electron detection, but is deduced statistically from multiple measurements of multibody processes.  If anybody thinks they know better, please quote me chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]

Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest lines – one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one photon at a time.

Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation. Spin 1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody effects” achieve this this. Chapter and verse.

Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis.  Each so-called wave is actually just one Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered noise, etc.

Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier component. For example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier analysis is an interesting human concept, but not the fundamental basis of wave motion. … Sorry – as you say below as well…

The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for all charges in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving device (antenna).  All Fourier componets are unreal, just aids for calculation.  This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of Fourier.  Namely, the components of a short time pulse extend from -inf. to +inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows news!  But not just tomorrow, for all time!!  Eventually it was concluded that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.

It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics of the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better onta than charges, magic delays and 4-potentials are space and time and root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both from a deeper level. I do not think one is ever going to “get” fields properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is a personal choice.

Counter arguments welcome.  I will be delighted if I hear a new one!

I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!

Best regards,  Al

Cheers, John.

Gesendet: Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr
Von: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>
An: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hi Al

This idea of modeling the electron from a photon when we know so little about light and whether photons are real, or just illusions caused by the quantization of matter, has troubled me too.

When we model the electron in this manner, it winds up (eventually) defining a thing called a photon.  This seems to always happen because the quantization we observe in the energy of the electron “spills over” into our understanding of what the nature of propagating energy (light) must be. Spin angular momentum, it seems, MUST also be due to a form of confinement. The same set of balanced forces which cause spin angular momentum would have to also cause a form of quantization and “localization”.  And when we create equations, much as John W has done, to describe a condition in which this spin angular momentum is created for the electron, it means that the rules we suggest to describe the observed properties of the electron also have an impact on the way light behaves.

For some time I had been of the opinion that it is possible that light is simply continuous radiation.  In some ways I would be delighted if we found that is the case.  However it now seems to me that there simply has to be a form of quantization in order for light to display any spin angular momentum.  So in my personal view I am back to considering the “photon” to actually be a quantized energy form (no matter how distasteful that is to me).

Thoughts?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; pete at leathergoth.com; david williamson <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>; Nicholas Bailey <Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

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<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "david williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>" <pete at leathergoth.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Nicholas Bailey" <Nicholas.Bailey at glasgow.ac.uk<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
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 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151116/640c5a71/attachment.htm>