[General] SU(2) equation set

Mon Nov 16 16:34:55 PST 2015

Hi Al,

This discussion is finally starting to go somewhere useful.

I’m going to go green this time…

Hi John:

My responces in Bold.

Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2015 um 05:11 Uhr
Von: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "pete at leathergoth.com" <pete at leathergoth.com>, "Nick Bailey" <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>, "David Williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
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).
It can also be said that, chrges exist and interact via Gaussian (1/r²_delay).  The field concept is superfluous.  The delay is (in one sense) magic, all of it is!  Where did it come from?  The ideas I'm propounding lead to the simplest, self-consistent mathematical description of how this magic seems to work.

Yes, it could be, but one has no explanation for the charges unless one goes deeper.

Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!
The induced currents in this case are in the material of the magnets.  Manybody effects.  In the end B/H fields are a means of taking the delay into account.  In well chosen units Maxwell's eqs. go to electrostatics (Gaussian interaction describable with just E/D fields) when c-->inf. .

Saying “manybody effects” is a serious copout. Which “manybody effects” obeying juyst which differential equations in what theory?

Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents?
No measurment is being made.  But obviously the electrons in the outer layer of pants repel those in the chair ....

Nope – one has matter on matter – no chair collapse due to field interference – as in my explanation of the underlying reason for the exclusion principle.

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?
Silly; obviously if no currents anywhere were engendered, there would be no effect!

One need have no current at all to feel the force – there are no currents in electrostatics!

Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!
As long as I'v been in the business, a "current" has been a flow of multiple electrons.  Stick your finger in a socket and then tell me there was no "onta" there.

Wrong:  This is just too simple minded : there are (at least) three distinct kinds of current: flow of actual charges – displacement current (a changing electro-magnetic field – no charges anywhere in sight) and a QM current given by integral of Phi grad phistar – phistar grad phi. I have conducted experiments with single elctrons, where the charge is distributed and flows (or is distributed in a stationary state) according to the latter (E.g Phys rev 1990 Williamson et al.). There is an a.c current flowing across a capacitor – a continuous current – carried by a electromagnetic field in both the conductors and across the gap. Read Feynmann! He argues all the current in a wire is OUTSIDE the wire! Now I would not go quite that far – but he has a point.  Also let me give you a coil and invite you to go close to a transformer! No electrical connection – no charge transfer – are you on?

 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.

Balony!  A spectral line from a single electron transition would never be visible.  Tell me about absorbtion spectroscopy at the single photon (i.e. single photo electron) level!

 Al, you are just not keeping up with the literature . This is not so – Robert Hadfield (on this thread – is engineering single photon detectors! One photon – one transition.) You are just trying to deny experiment.

Fact is, it's damn hard to register a single photo electron, mostly it's done by counting the cascades it is presumed to initiate.  Fact is, a single photo electron reveals nothing about the spin (really the polarization of the grand sum of signals).  All of that kind of info comes from obvious multibody experiments.  What is a "single photon spcetral line"?

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.
I'v read the text books too.  I know what the orthodox explantion for certain results is.  I also know that, that explantion in the end employs a long long line of inferences from the earlier chapters in those tests that are based on all kinds of mystical BS, or just the "Standard Model" with its 66 free paramenters!  If you'r happy with that, go with it!  My researches are aimed at the nonsense in the early chapters.

Yes. Mine too – and you are making me waste my time arguing about bloody conventional physics we all both know everthing about!

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…
This is evidence that you'r not reading what I wrote!  I repeadly stressed that the only real (ontic) interaction is the SUM of ALL Fouier components.  Any single compnent is only at best an approximation (often not so bad becasue it is by far the largest term---if the special functions chosen correspond to the geometry of the sender/receiver complex.  Also, note that Fourier analysis is possible with the soltins of any so-called  Sturm- I know all this – and you are not readin what I wrote as well. See the last line in blue above!
Liouville equ. (hyperbolic diffeq).

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.

 Fine!  "You pays your ticket, and you gets your laundry." Long ago I noted that, there does not exist a manifestly covariant, self-consistent set of wave equations for interaction entities.

Yes and you were right – till 2014. Because that is exactly what eqs. 9-13 are. Manifestly covariant. Like the Dirac equations. Unlike the Dirac equation, however, the solutions eq 21 is also manifestly covariant.

Better than that, you are (and always were, from your thesis) right about the problems with conventional relativity and all the clock synchronisation. Such arguments always imply a round trip. Eqs 18-19 DERIVE the starting point of relativity – without any clock synchronisation nonsense. Look at them!

This represents a symptom of a serious incompletion of even just the QM formalism (not to mention interpretation).

Agreed: what the hell do you think I am doing!!?? I am not playing any silly games here, going down avenues which many others have exhausted. This is NEW … covariant equations AND covariant solutions.

 Think – even if you are right and one can do everything with point particles, their Gaussian potentials and the Lienard-Wiechert potential (which I first solved in my early 20’s at grad school) – one is still left with unphysical point particles needing to explain what the vector potential is and is anyway no further than mid 20th century physics. One is left with a handful of nothing and a mouthful of teeth. Nothing to show and nothing to say. This route is ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR ME– though that is what I seem to be reduced to arguing about!

  Investigations revealed that the obstacles to formulating such an equation were the features of mainline physics leading to the twin paradox and entanglement.

True. Dead end though. This is why I am not bothering with any of that. These folk are already lost (and have been for some time).

 I have taken my shots at these issues.  Over the years, +/- 75 mainline big names have promissed me that as soon as they have time, they would produce devistating criticisms.  So far, none have found the time!

Yes. They are lost in the same fog.

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

I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!

Glad to find that was true, but some of those in green ARE new. We may finally be getting somewhere!

Right!  Mainline texts are known to me.  What I find in the first chapters (if anything, really) is not satisfying.  Mostly egregious errors in logic or math pop out the first few pages!  In your papers,  for example, you'r, at best, misusing the term "field."

Al. Once more, and for the last time. I AM NOT STARTING FROM “FIELD”.  Chip – One can understand much from the starting point of field – but it is still not good enough for the fundamentals needed to solve Hilbert’s sixth. Field by itself is not good enough. Vector potential is not good enough. Point particles are certainly not good enough (even if ubiquitous in Leinart-Weicrat – and the rest of the “standard model”). You can all play with them if you like – or argue they are everything, but this is not a game for me.

Your use will invest circularitiy, which will be "not even inconsistent" in the end.  "Space" and "time" are capacitites---empty boxes.  That's what THESE words mean.  Seems to me that, if you want to chage their meaning and attribute more than their usual meaning by virtue of other properties, it would be well advised to coin a new word.

Yes – but no. David taught me this.  I should have paid more attention to my children’s books – Seuss was right: the new alphabet begins where the old one ends. One, indeed, needs to get back to the root and the new word is “vot”. Space and time are empty boxes only if empty (which they are in most of time and space). In “particles” however they are not. There, space, time and their products and quotients are filled with vot. This is the new physics of the 21st century. I have not given space and time any new properties at all in “absolute relativity” – just come to the realisation of what they mean, properly. The proper properties of space and time have then been enforced – rigourously. It is the rigourous enforcement which has led to the new results of the covariant, holomorphic, photon wavefunction, the underlying nature of light and material particles, the underlying nature of charge and the proper nature of quantum spin. If you are not interested – ok. As I said in a previous post though – do not say where other people are wrong, or quote other eminences who say this is impossible. Look at my stuff and TELL ME WHERE I AM WRONG. Like Viv, I will not accept (the dubious authority of) another theory – only experiment.

Now, It is about 1.30 am, and I am about an hour into my early morning research session on Tuesday the 17th of November 2015. I have, just, invented new words for space and time as well – because I think they are related to each other as well at a deeper level. Have just written these down in my logbook – date and time of this email (roughly). That, however, is for a later discussion and a later paper. TBD (to be discussed). Doctor!

Some clues: the one and the three  (the four then) are what one needs for a balance. I think it is likely nothing else works in the multiple three’s (the spaces of the observable universe) (with the possible exception of the seven (also works but skips by twos- leaving, again, just four). For those of you into Tolkien… Nine is bollocks! You need a twelve and a four! If you want to know what all that bullshit was about – you will just have to read my papers and understand them properly!

Best regards,  Al

Cheers, John.
Likewise,  Al

I remain, yours truly, John (W).

________________________________
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: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:52 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; pete at leathergoth.com; Mark, Martin van der; David Williamson; Nick Bailey
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set