[General] SU(2) equation set

[John Williamson]

Hello Al,

We were working at the same time!
________________________________
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 7:03 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:

It may well be possible to explain charge in terms of mass; but I expect (for vague reasons) that it will turn out the other way around.  Gravitation will be seen as a residue effect of E&M due to some asymetry in the two signs on Gauss's Law (repulsion vs. attraction).  At this time:  just guesses!

Yes it may well be so. I think the truth is though that both are related. Either way we need to find the connections. Also I think you are absolutely right in that the VALUE of the electron mass is, in my view, determined by the charge. Precisely, through the sum-total of interactions with the rest of the universe, just as you have been suggesting in the thread with Albrecht. This can be calculated - as I said in a previous post. Martin has done this (with certain assumptions!) and the observed mass is in the right ballpark with respect to the mass and extent of the known universe. As I have said before, to do this we DO have a daft idea of what gravitation might be. No time for either of us to get down to developing this, let alone writing a paper, due to the demands of the day job. If any of you are expert on Gen Rel and fancy collaborating on a paper though - this could be disccussed at our next meeting next summer.

---Al

Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 02:10 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, et al.

Hi Chip:

The answer to your question below:  from formal logic we know that ALL logical structures are built on a set of "primative objects" that cannot be deduced logically or othrwise.  That is, the subject(s) of a theory really ought to be set out as hypothetical entities first.

Agreed. I just do not want to start from charge as I’m trying to explain just what charge IS.

 For physics theories the choice of primative objects for a theory are usually considered to be entities inspired by empirical experience.  Very difficult at the micro level!

Yep – realised this when I took it on. Gave it up once or twice too _ then found a friend (thanks Martin). Two was enough to make the progress we have – it has taken me about forty years so far and counting. It would be kind of good to have a few more folk helping us in our old age though!

But still, among the things involved in electrodynamcial experience, electrons are the most clearly evident and presistent.

I agree – this is what I decided in 1979. Thanks to David Bohm. So – one needs to understand just what electrons ARE huh?

 Entities like "energy," "field" and virtually everything but charge, mass, position as a function of time (compared to some cyclic standard) are abstractions, not ontological entities.

Agree with this mostly, but disagree on one point. Charge is just as bad. Position and time and mass. That is all I’m using. One needs to DERIVE charge from ones onta.

Making them the primative elements for a theory can be expected to lead to mystical jibberish.  Physics, after all, is supposded to be about the material world, so that making the primative elements of physics theories abstractions is utterly misguided!  That's religion, of which the world has too much already.

I agree completely. Forget taking charge as a starting point then. Agreed?

Hope that claifies my position.  I did not get my message chiseled on stone from a burning bush, however.  But neither did anybody else!

Nope – for me the bush was just blowin gently in the wind! The cool stone melted smoothly into such a beautiful form!

Best, Al

Ciao, John W.

________________________________
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/20151117/34a5d942/attachment.htm>