[General] SU(2) equation set

[John Williamson]

Hello Al,

I agree - and am never upset (emotionally) talking about physics. It is just fun for me to explore. It has been a real pleasure doing this with you. You, like me (and very few others), are tryingto get to the fundamentals. This is hard! You have forced me to face many things I have not explained very well until now.
Thank you for you patience, insight and good sense of humour.

You are also right that the present explanations are too foggy. Clearly!

I am thinking that the explanations provided for our hypothetical (and very erudite!) mother, may be more what is needed. What does everyone think?

Anyway comments bluelow...
________________________________
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: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:53 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; pete at leathergoth.com; David Williamson; Mark, Martin van der; Nick Bailey
Subject: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set

Hi John:

My comment on "emotion" was not aimed at any one, or any story told on this blog specifically, but at the general, human-kind orientation, in which we all take part.
.
Agreed, No problem.

My glitches with your story are at the "for dummies" level, mostly.  Your analysis or presentation of the inputs at the start is, for my questions, too foggy  (just why is also foggy---no doubt, my own ignorance is a factor).  Another factor is that my head keeps jumping back to the notation and notions (diffy forms, Clifford) I was familiar with decades ago.  This causes me to lose track while reading it.  It may be that formal logic for you is too far in the past also.  I want to know what idems you are not going to explain, and how that are set out be common experience, to the degree possible.

Thank you for that. I will do my best.

Briefly, the aim of the new theory is very broad. To provide a new theoretical basis on which to understand both light and material particles. To make contact with the useful (in the engineering sense) theories of physics.

That is...

Maxwell electromagnetism - not the U(1) version - the full thing. The new theory encompasses the field and vector potential parts of Maxwell electromagnetism, inserts rest-mass in a new way and derives the nature of charge. All results from ordinary electromagnetism then follow, identically.

Relativistic quantum mechanics - fix the problems in Dirac theory. These are three-fold. Dirac solutions are not covariant. The mass is introduced incorrectly. The version of electromagnetism used is just too simple (only U(1)!).

Quantum electrodynamics - derive its starting points and fix the charge and mass renormalisation problem, by calculating the proper nature of charge and mass.

Ordinary quantum mechanics - derive a proper wave-function for an electron exhibiting a point-like interaction, an extended size, and explaining the nature of quantised charge and half-integral spin.

Quark model. Derive SU(3) from first principles.

Strong interaction. Understand its proper nature. It is not gluons guys. Experimentally.

Weak interaction. Ditto.

I am not aiming, yet, to encompass general relativity.

ciao,  Al

Regards, John.

Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 02:36 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>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>, "David Williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>
Betreff: Re: [General] SU(2) equation set
Hello Al,

Hi Chip:

The challenge is to overcome the tendency of the human mind to synthesize abstract stories with emotional appeal but lacking in coherence.  Formal logic is the only hope of imposing counter discipline.

Agreed. Coherence is vital. Formal logic and discipline as well.

One does need, occasionally, to “synthesize abstract stories”. One needs the IRON discipline, though, of keeping them within the strict framework of BOTH what has gone before that works well AND (more importantly) absolute agreement with ALL of experiment. As you say, that is hard, very hard, even very very very hard.

Eventually, to solve Hilbert's sixth, someone has to do it. In the absence of an Einstein or a Newton or a Maxwell - one of us must step up to the mark. Ok, chances are anything we try will not quite hit the target – but it is fun playing the game anyway.

So – tell me where you think, emotional appeal aside, my abstract story lacks coherence. Please?



---Al

Tootle-pip -J.
_______________________________________________ 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/20151117/5d60d296/attachment.htm>