[General] SU(2) equation set

[Chip Akins]

Hi John W.

 

Yes, I agree that field is not the most fundamental, not the best we can do
given the available data.  I have had some time to work through a bit of the
math in you papers, and find it to be extremely similar to what I am
thinking the full set of field equations actually are (for what that is
worth).  I am very encouraged, but it takes me some time to digest the
detail, so bear with me. I have a habit of trying to go step by step and
prove everything.  Sometimes a good habit, but time consuming.

 

Yes, the perfect balancing of the forces we know must exist from the
empirical evidence. Yet in agreement with what we have been able to
establish, like Maxwell's equations.

 

Thank you.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 6:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: pete at leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Mark,
Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; David Williamson
<david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

 

Hello Chip,

 

Blue .

 

Hi John D

 

Thank you. And yes. More fundamental, meaning a bit simpler.

 

Yes, field is a bit simpler than "charge", in that charge leads to the
potentials (with a proper definition, and the potentials then lead to the
fields. Also there is some hope of understanding charge from fields, but no
hope of understanding chage if one starts with it a-priori.

 

But the thing that makes the energy in the electron go round and round,
given what we know about light and the electron. this confinement/rotation
thing, it seems must cause angular momentum in light as well. Not the same
angular momentum, for the light energy is in a simpler configuration than
the fermionic energy, but the same set of causes: energy behaving like
energy behaves in space.

Agreed wholeheartedly. You do not need an extra thing to "make the light go
round and round" and generate the angular momentum. The thing only works
with angular momentum. It has to be there to balance the vector - as in
equation 21. If you do that you get force-free motion. No that there are no
forces - just that the forces balance. That is what the new equations 6-13
do for you.

 

I have explored literally dozens of different scenarios, some conjured up by
me, many suggested by others, to explain just how this energy is confined in
the electron.  (Including trying to figure out some form of self-diffraction
causing confinement, but that does not work given what we know. The math
does not work.  We have to break too many of the known "laws" to force fit
this solution.) The only viable and supportable solutions I have found,
require that light have a component of angular momentum.  Yes,
superposition, and Chandra's NIW could produce any measured polarization for
light, but that would not alleviate the twist term requirement in field
equations to explain electron confinement.  And if that twist term must
exist, it is most likely that light is also quantized.  But when we say that
light is quantized it does not mean that we are saying it is not a wave.
Light is a wave, and apparently it comes in quantized packets, but it is
still a wave.

 

You and me both. I have found one that works though. That is wha the two
papers are about. The forces are in there. Balanced. Look at it!

 

And likewise, the electron is a wave.  It is in a quantized and localized
form, but it is a wave nonetheless. It is a very robustly confined wave, so
it has particle behaviors, but it is a wave. 

 

True.

 

Regardless of my personal views, energy is what it is, and it does what it
does.  Given the knowns, that leads to a narrow set of possibilities.

 

Just looking for exactly what it IS, rather than what I would prefer it is,
or what I think might explain it.

 

By the way, having worked quite a bit with standing waves (the EM variety),
the standing wave analogy does not work for me.  For me, energy going round
and round is not really the same thing as energy going back and forth. The
standing wave analogy leaves out too much of the important detail.  The
motion of the electron's confined energy in the hydrogen atom, is different
than the motion of the energy in a free electron.  And that difference is
very informative.  

 

Yes this is true. A standing wave IS just energy going back and forth. The
energy in the hydrogen atom is not in a standing but a stationary wave. The
electron solution, however, is not so different from that of the hydrogen
atom, except that one, necessarily, has a double loop. It has to be a double
loop for two reasons: firstly it is a turning twisted solution (eq 21),
secondly the double twist solves the base (extended) equation with the
rest-mass term, dG=0. The (electron) turn ends up being in a space parallel
to, but not the same as the (photon) twist. You will understand this last
statement once we get into the nitty gritty of the simulations we are going
to do together.

 

Thoughts?

 

Lots!

 

Chip

 
<file:///\\localhost\Users\jwilliamson\Library\Caches\TemporaryItems\msoclip
\0\clip_image002.png> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151116/9749c08a/attachment.htm>