[General] Nature of charge
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Nov 28 06:57:45 PST 2015
Hi John W
As Chandra has pointed out, gamma radiation does not behave in the same way
as radiation in the visible or RF spectra.
When we analyze the electron, a high Q resonant system, using electrical
engineering formulae, to "reverse engineer" the electron, it is easy to
imagine that the electrical and magnetic components of the waveform are 90
degrees out of phase. Practically any "circuit" one would care to analyze,
which is a stable high Q circuit, will exhibit these properties.
Now if we imagine that the magnetic phenomena in radiation is as Albrecht
has pointed out, "magnetism is not an original force but a relativistic side
effect of the electrical force", then it might be reasonable to also assume
there is a small but finite delay between the electrical and magnetic
phenomena in radiation.
If this fixed delay is such that, at 0.511MeV, the wavelength of the
radiation and the delay cause this shift to be 90 degrees, then this could
contribute to the amazing stability of the electron. With the double loop
structure of the electron, this phase shift would place the magnetic field
180 degrees from the electric field in that structure.
The phase shift may also explain some of the differences in behavior of
gamma radiation.
I am not proposing that this accounts for the confinement force of the
electron, but rather that this may contribute to its remarkable stability.
Thoughts?
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 12:34 AM
To: A. F. Kracklauer <af.kracklauer at web.de>; Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of charge
Dear Al,
What would be "clumsy" for a local particle, would be to have to conform to
some universal external "grid". Klickety klack!
Comments below ...
_____
From: A. F. Kracklauer [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 9:40 AM
To: Mark, Martin van der; John Williamson
Cc: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey;
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David
Williamson
Subject: Re: [General] Nature of charge
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.
Not so - for an inter-action one is, of course, referring to the interaction
with the rest of the universe - and this part needs to be understood. This
goes back to the "interaction with the observer" and causality arguments
earlier - and for which I had considered writing a paper for SPIE. I think,
from experience, the discussion will absorb far too much energy to have any
hope of making progress in this forum.
Having said this the absolute most forward point in time for any given
particle is, clearly, its present time, everything else is "ago". The rest
of the universe may be going to react back, but it has not done so yet. It
may have done so "already" but that is another matter.
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.
Yes - individual particles are not very smart (I hope! Otherwise they will
be having a good laugh at all this) and have enough trouble referring to
their own frame. Getting the interaction with just one other frame is a very
interesting problem, which I have talked about before. Understanding this
one though is key: one to begin with, two the next step. After two: many.
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.
Obviously: if a-b is positive b-a is negative. So what? The difficulty does
not lie in the mere notation of position, but in the symmetry and the nature
of division. This is much more complicated!
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!
Agreed! Deriving the nature of time in terms of space or space in terms of
time is, indeed, a worthy goal. As I have said in earlier posts - it is
anyway not time or space one needs to understand - but their inversions - as
these are more fundamental. Hope Martin and I can get the division paper out
soon. Now I hope, of course, that this level of understanding has been
enough to properly describe the nature of the photon and electron - as in my
two SPIE papers. Again, experience shows that this may not yet be the whole
story!
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.
I think this modelling of dynamics is the wrong approach - though that which
is has been most widely followed. It presumes the experimenters system
a-priori. This is usually Cartesian and grid-oriented. Big mistake! It leads
to a lot of "loco" arguments. I think one needs to understand how the rest
of the universe looks from the point of view of the inter-actors themselves.
These things are spinning rather rapidly in multiple dimensions. This makes
it a bit hard for the poor little things (even if very very smart) to keep
track of all the x's y's and z's (or whatevers). I think the prime
dimensional direction has to be outward and inward. The prime reference for
this scale, for the particle, is the particle size and the particle clock.
Everything else has just been made up by objects in that big, bad universe
outside. KISS.
For what it's worth, Al
Cheers, -John.
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>
mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Sent: vrijdag 27 november 2015 4:56
To: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de
Cc: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey
<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>;
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray
<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; David
Williamson <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> <david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>;
Mark, Martin van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<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: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> 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: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey;
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> 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" < <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
An: " <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de" <
<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de>, "
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Nick Bailey" < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
nick at bailey-family.org.uk>, " <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com>
pete at leathergoth.com" < <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com>,
"Ariane Mandray" < <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>, "David Williamson" <
<mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>, "Mark, Martin
van der" < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
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: <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> 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: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion;
Nick Bailey; <mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> 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" < <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
An: "John Williamson" < <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
Cc: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Nick Bailey" <
<mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk> nick at bailey-family.org.uk>, "
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com" <
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <
<mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>, "David
Williamson" < <mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> 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 <
<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> 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>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 7:46 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey < <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; David Williamson <
<mailto:david.williamson at ed.ac.uk> david.williamson at ed.ac.uk>;
<mailto:pete at leathergoth.com> pete at leathergoth.com; Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> 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 <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> af.kracklauer at web.de
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1> Click here
to unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151128/7593dc80/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list