[General] Nature of charge
A. F. Kracklauer
af.kracklauer at web.de
Fri Nov 27 01:40:17 PST 2015
Hi:
This sounds like a model in which a principal particle is to be
described from its point of view (as it were) and as if the rest of the
universe does not react back. The moment two interacting entities are
to be described, then the idea of radial-time and even more so, radial
distance, requires different x-forms for/to each interaction---maybe,
but clumsy. Usually, the two (or more) entities are referred to a
"parameter space" (x,y,z,t) for which x_1 to x_2 can be pos./def. but
then x_2 to x_1 isn't. Even t-intervals can be negative, depending on
whose "0" is used.
Anyway, the one-way of time is wrt dynamical evolution, not the sign of
instantaneous intervals. The problem with the metric arises because
space is not related to time except through some physical process, the
nature of which is as often as not the basic issue: "what is a
photon/electron?". Sounds like a do-loop!
Wolf's philosphy is OK, but the dynamics can be modeled with the lab as
just a nest for the parameter space, i.e., passive. This presumes the
lab observer is relative distant and weak.
For what it's worth, Al
On 27.11.2015 10:16, Mark, Martin van der wrote:
>
> Yes John,
>
> and the moment you take differences (intervals), the whole problem
> disappears as well.
>
> The direction of time is mainly a thing related to the structure of an
> ensemble, the ultimate example being the universe as a whole. It is
> related to the interaction of otherwise independent things direction
> of flow of energy and loss/lack of coherence.
>
> Regards, Martin
>
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
> 5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
> *From:*John Williamson [mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* vrijdag 27 november 2015 4:56
> *To:* af.kracklauer at web.de
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey
> <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; pete at leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; David Williamson
> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Subject:* RE: RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge
>
> Hello Al and everyone.
>
> Good points.
>
> It is fairly straightforwards to put in time as irreversible. Just
> switch to Polar, spherical or toroidal co-ordinates (or pretty much
> anything except Cartesian) and put time in as a (positive definite)
> radius. I have a bit of trouble with thinking of space as being
> "reversible" as well. Wolf emphasises that the observer must be
> primary and he is right. Everything acting on any observer is also
> uni-directional. Its is both "away" and "ago". Think about it!
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> [af.kracklauer at web.de]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 26, 2015 2:06 PM
> *To:* John Williamson
> *Cc:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nick Bailey;
> pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>; Ariane Mandray;
> David Williamson; Mark, Martin van der
> *Subject:* Aw: RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge
>
> Hi John et al.:
>
> Martin's theorem has the heft & feel of a result for topological
> spaces, not metric spaces. Metric space-talk tends to get added by
> mathematical-physicists who, mostly, are not plowing through the
> minutia proving theorems, but, all too often, doing symbolic
> gymnastics with symbols---works sometimes, but cannot tell when! I,
> for one, would like to see the basics of your story in convential
> "Clifford-type" notation. Putting a metric with signature invoving
> both + & - is not really faithful to the fact that time is
> irreversable! How do you get that fact into the metric so that you
> can have some confidence that what you are writing about has relvance
> for the "lab"? [Getting all kinds of numbers right can be a result of
> the sort typically found by dimentional analysis: nothing new, just
> pulling out what was elsewhere put in.]
>
> Best, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 26. November 2015 um 13:36 Uhr
> *Von:* "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>
> *An:* "af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>"
> <af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>>,
> "general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Cc:* "Nick Bailey" <nick at bailey-family.org.uk
> <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>>, "pete at leathergoth.com
> <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>" <pete at leathergoth.com
> <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>>, "Ariane Mandray"
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>, "David
> Williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk
> <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>, "Mark, Martin van der"
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
> *Betreff:* RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge
>
> Hello Al,
>
> Yes it does have some bearing - and it is certainly part of the truth
> - though it is a bit more complicated than that they merely appear as
> oscillations. Also, what kind of behaviour one sees depends on how one
> modifies the local metric - and even with what handedness and sign.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who may not know what Al,
> Martin and I are on about - let us be more specific (for mothers!).
> The kind of metric which Martin is talking about in his "everyone on
> the equator" and that Al refers to in
>
> "if all dimentions are equivalent"
>
> is for a 4D space the metric (++++), where all directions square to
> plus unity. This is also the metric of the space Martin refers to in
> "everyone being on the equator". Martin's statement is, specifically
> for the case of two perpendicular plane rotations in such a plain (as
> opposed to plane) 4D space (eg xy and zw) with the SAME angular
> frequency. When the metric changes it gets (much) more complicated but
> also a LOT more beautiful. The above argument is for a normal 4D
> space. In terms of a Clifford algebra it is Cl(4,0) (four square to
> plus unity -- none to minus unity. Martin and I are using Cl(1,3) one
> squares to plus (time), three square to minus (space), metric (-+++).
>
> Now it is not so that, under rotations, you need two different signs.
> Just using rotations in the plane the x co-ordinate oscillates a cos
> and the y as a sin. Oscillations then (in the (++), Cl(2,0) algebra --
> follow from rotations without bothering with any "weirdness".
>
> What is new if one throws a "--" into the mix and this is where what
> Al says is partly true (and what you may be remembering, Al) - is that
> the fundamental differential function (the exponential) changes form
> and becomes oscillatory. This is equivalent to saying that the power
> function transformation (that transforms multiplication to addition --
> the log then) then gives oscillating forms. It is this property I have
> used to derive eq 21.
>
> This may be seen most simply in ordinary complex numbers, Cl (1,1)
> where the exponential is either rising or falling in Cl(1,0) or
> Cl(2,0), but the imaginary part represents oscillations (e^i theta) in
> complex space. It is not, though the fact that one has different signs
> that is important here, but the fact that one has negative signs.
>
> So what does happen to (generalised) rotations? What happens is that
> one has some that go as ordinary sin and cos and others that go as
> sinh and cosh. This produces, not osciallations, but transformations
> to and from motion at the speed of light with a "quarter turn" in
> space-time space (alpha 10).
>
> There you go.
>
> Regards, to all of you (and all of your erudite mums!).
>
> John.
>
> **
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
> [af.kracklauer at web.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:25 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General
> Discussion; Nick Bailey; pete at leathergoth.com
> <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson
> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [General] Nature of charge
>
> Hi All & Martin:
>
> Here I'm going out on a limb a bit (it's 43 years since I took a
> course in algebraic topology!) but I seem to remamber that this is
> true if all dimentions are equivalent, either there is no metric at
> all (pure topological space) or the metric can be everywhere
> diagonalized to the unit matix (inner product/metric space). However,
> if one of the dimentions has a different character (time---say, vice
> space--->metric has a nonunit factor in the diagonal form, then
> rotations on 3d submanifolds appear as oscillations to 3d observers.
> I can't say for certain that this complication bears on the issue at
> contest here, but it seems very probable that it could. Anyway,
> intuition is worthless for d>3!
>
> For what it's worth, Al
>
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 24. November 2015 um 19:23 Uhr
> *Von:* "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
> *An:* "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
> <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>
> *Cc:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>, "Nick Bailey"
> <nick at bailey-family.org.uk <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>>,
> "pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>"
> <pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>>, "Ariane Mandray"
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>>, "David
> Williamson" <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Nature of charge
>
> There is atheirem that says that on a 4d sphere, a 3-sphere, every one
> lives on the equator, which means that every point is equivalent, and
> has the same rotation. No poles, perfectly combable.
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>
> Op 24 nov. 2015 om 07:15 heeft John Williamson
> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hello Chip and Richard,
>
> I had been meaning to add to this post for some time, but did not
> find a free moment till now.
>
> Will comment below, first on Chip's post, then on Richard's. This
> is also relevant to John Hodge's recent post on the nature of charge.
>
> Feel like going in red this morning ....
>
> of comments from what a model...
>
> Hi Richard
>
> Correct me if I am wrong here. It seems that there is not a
> requirement that the electron actually be a sphere, but only that
> its scattering characteristics are the same as that of a sphere.
> Do you think this statement is correct?
>
> Yes and no. What is known is that the scattering is sphere-like --
> in that there is no "structure function" for the electron. This
> means, as I have said many times before, that the scattering is
> consistent with it being a SINGLE particle, with a spherical --
> inverse square law of scattering.
>
> Saying the electron must "be a sphere" anyway begs the question --
> what kind of sphere? Is it a 3-sphere in 3-space? A four-sphere in
> 4D space? A sphere in the three components of the electric field
> (a bivector space)? Something more complicated than any of these?
>
> I'm afraid, ladies and gentlemen, that the answer is the latter,
> though of the three specific static cases I think the third case
> comes closest. The electron, however, is certainly not static --
> it is very very dynamic.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Richard Gauthier
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk
> <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>>; David Williamson
> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>>;
> pete at leathergoth.com <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>; Mark, Martin
> van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model...
>
> Hello John D and Albrecht,
>
> We're not quite there by merely replacing Albrecht's two
> circulating massless particles by a double-looping photon. By
> doing this the radius of the circle drops from hbar/mc to hbar/2mc
> because the total loop length is still one Compton wavelength. A
> double loop of length 1 Compton wavelength h/mc has half the
> radius of a single loop and therefore (if the circulating photon
> carries charge -e moving at light speed) half the calculated
> magnetic moment of Albrecht's model, i.e. 1/2 Bohr magneton. The
> loss in magnetic moment from Albrecht's 2-particle model has to be
> made up in some other way. But this double-looping photon model of
> the electron has spin 1/2 hbar while Albrecht's two-particle model
> has spin 1 hbar. No argument about retarded light-speed forces
> between his 2 light-speed circling massless particles will bring
> the total spin of the two-particle system down to exactly 1/2 hbar
> while keeping its magnetic moment at 1 Bohr magneton. That would
> be like pulling a magical rabbit out of a hat which so far only
> Dirac with his equation has been able to do successfully (he
> wasn't called a magician for nothing.) The Williamson - van der
> Mark 1997 electron model comes close with its proposed centrally
> located static electric charge -e inferred from their twisting
> double-looping uncharged photon's inward pointing electric fields
> at the model's equator.
>
> The WvdM model does get the magic rabbit right. Not only that it
> gets the QED first order correction to the magic rabbit right
> (about 1 part in a thousand bigger) -- which the Dirac model does
> not do.
>
> (But what happened to their double-looping photon's electric field
> at and near the model's two poles?) .
>
> Richard, you are still thinking about a little photon bullet
> whizzing around in 3-space only. This is not good enough. You need
> to do what you were accusing Einstein of not doing! Intuition,
> insight and imagination!
>
> The original 1997 paper already explained the transport around
> the torus was not in space but in space-time. The rotations are
> not just in 3-space but in a higher-dimensional space. In three
> space one cannot have, simultaneously the two axes of "rotation"
> that are needed for the WvdM model. In 4-space one can. This is
> the "quantum bicycle" I keep trying to explain to you. A 4-spatial
> rotation is still (in my present view) too simple, but illustrates
> (one of the) salient points. Imagine a space x y z w. Now allow a
> rotation in the xy plane, with a simultaneous rotation in the zw
> plane. Now let the path traced by a point (x y z w) fill 4-space.
> Let the length of this path (x squared plus y squared plus z
> squared plus w squared) oscillate in phase with "rotations". This
> is the program I implemented in the little java applet I
> circulated a few months ago. What does one observe when one
> projects this "motion" onto 3-space? You can find lots of these
> projections on the web if you look. It is kind of difficult to do
> it in your head -- but dead easy to implement it in a computer .
> Anyway, in one kind of projection one observes a sphere, in
> another a torus. For such flows, it is perfectly possible (even
> necessary) to have a spherical projection for the electric field,
> while having a toroidal form in a projection onto other spaces.
> Thinking in just 3D space severely limits ones imagination!
>
> Now the motion I'm envisioning nowadays is more complicated than
> merely 4-dimesional, as there are far more "planes" than just the
> six in 4-D space. The electron rotation has three rotation planes
> (at least!) Looking at the photon solution (eq 21) one rotation is
> a normal spatial plane (xy), the other in the "plane" formed from
> the scalar and the pseudoscalar. This latter pair are isomorphic
> to complex numbers. This means the photon "twist" is already in a
> 4-component space, just not that of x y z t, but that of scalar,
> pseudocalar, electric and magnetic field "space". Now to get the
> electron solution, one takes that already "4-dimensional" motion
> and lets it loop again "rotating" it in yet another plane in the
> even subset (of eight!) dimensions. The resulting object is
> rotating in (at least) nine "dimensions" (eight modulated by
> "time"). What one observes is a projection of this. What is
> required by experiment is that the interaction part (the electric
> field part) is spherical, at least if one does not come within
> touching distance when direct field interference kicks in. At
> these distances the Pauli exclusion principle kicks in, as
> described in my 2012 paper at MENDEL.
>
> This model can't convincingly explain how a sphere enclosing a
> double-looping uncharged photon can have a non-zero divergence of
> its electric field (indicating a non-zero enclosed electric
> charge) without violating Gauss' law (the first Maxwell equation).
>
> This is only true if you take the electron to be constituted a
> massless photon (as you do). Let me try, once again, to convince you.
>
> Look at Gauss's law in the full set of equations in my paper.
> This is equation 6. There is another term, as well as the electric
> field divergence (which is the DEFINITION of "charge")
> corresponding to root-mass exchange. This is the nature of charge
> in QED. The electric field divergence, in the new equations, is
> non zero if there is mass-energy exchange. That is (part of) the
> root of charge. It is not the whole story -- as photon exchange
> needs ALL eight (well at least seven) of the even terms to explain
> it properly. It does mean that Gauss's law needs to be extended by
> allowing for mass-energy exchange though. This is anyway the case,
> if you think about it, in both QED and the inhomogenous Maxwell
> equations (where,in both, you put in the "charge by hand!).
>
> Given the state- of play of Martin and my model in 2015 there are
> now two ways to calculate the charge in the resulting model. The
> first is to use the curvature, and the calculated electric field,
> to get the charge in terms of Plancks' constant (or vice versa).
> This is what Martin and I did in out 1997 paper. The other way is
> to integrate the cross-section of charge-charge interactions over
> the universe -- which requires a knowledge of the number of
> charges in the universe and their distribution. This is harder.
> Both give values for the elementary charge within the right
> ballpark, however.
>
> I think that in order to retain a viable double-looping photon
> model of the electron, one may have to bite the bullet and accept
> that the circulating double-looping photon is itself electrically
> charged and also has a rest mass of 0.511 MeV/c^2 and a spin of
> 1/2 hbar.
>
> Absolutely not! You cannot claim to get charge out if you put it
> in! Also -- I have said this before and will not change my mind --
> you cannot put it in and stay with a massless photon. You just
> can't Do the maths! Integrate the mass-energy in any one frame due
> to the charge alone and you will get a non-zero mass. This mass
> will be minimal where the field is radial -- and will increase for
> any other frame. End of story. You can SAY you have a "charged
> massless photon"-- but this does not make it consistent with
> reality! Sorry!
>
> You can say (and be right) that you have a charged electron with
> rest mass (if this is what you mean) -- but this is just what we
> have all been saying all along -- so what is the difference?
>
> By the way, Albrecht's two circulating particles may each have no
> rest mass as he describes, but they certainly each carry 1/2 of
> 0.511 MeV of a resting electron's total energy. This strongly
> implies that they are two circulating photons (or gluons?) each
> having energy 1/2 x 0.511 MeV. This also gives his electron model
> a spin of 1 hbar.
>
> with best regards,
>
> Richard
>
> Regards, from John.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and
> legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely
> for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or
> reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
> sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto: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/20151127/1d23f8f1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list