[General] Nature of charge

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Sun Nov 29 20:07:15 PST 2015


 Yo Al,

(Many others  French, Calibar parts of US ...)

Yep, round and round in circles sounds likely doesn't it! This is certainly true for most of the mad theories out there. The parameter count starts large, argues to deal with one crucial point which "no one else gets" but ends up (after including the ansatz) even larger. The better ones (most of us then!) at least end up with it being the same.

I have a saying in reply to a cliche. Onwards and upwards!  .... and round and round in circles!

If one goes up a hill one often ends up going round and round in circles – or stuck at a point! There is a group in Scotland who like to climb hills and pick off the tallest one a time - the so called "munro baggers”. My brother, David and I like to mess with this a little, climb the hills, walk round the top in a circle (without mounting it - but taking time for each of the vistas - spending perhaps an hour or two there) When we do this it always amuses us to see how many  folk reach the top, scan round briefly, maybe take a selfie, and then go straight back down again. On the popular hills, on a good day, this can easily be dozens. I have to admit, once the rush has passed, we like to go and sit on the top in peace and quiet as well- weather permitting!

Back to business.  In 1991 Martin and I made a list of all the starting points of the set of theories that constituted the then state of play of the “standard model”. I forget the exact number of a-priori inputs– but it was approaching a hundred. Think … six quarks, the SU(3) of flavour that goes with it,  the additional SU(3) of colour (gluons), three charged leptons, three neutrinos, four electroweak gauge bosons, The Higgs mechanism to deal with the mass problem, space, time, energy, charge, the Su(2) of spin, the plethora of observed symettries – CPT. A handful of “principles” Pauli exclusion, Heisenberg uncertainty, Mach’s …. wave-particle-duality, U(1) in general (as it pertains to the setting up of “wave-functions”, quantum “collapse”, the Poincare stresses lots of “conservation laws” (which tend to express the conservation of a quantity whose base nature is not more deeply understood) …. I’m up at over 40 already and not even trying!

Now it should be realised that if one can express any ONE of these in terms of another – and hence reduce the number of “fundamental” inputs by one, that this is major progress. For example Martin and my 1997 paper reduced the number of fundamental constants by one expressing charge in terms of Planck’s constant, or vice-versa. This is net progress. It also –incidentally, got the value for g-2 (the experimental difference for the value of 2 for the gyromagnetic ratio predicted by the Dirac model) from a consideration of the “rotation horizon”.  This latter is very important as this experiment is the rock on which all previous “electromagnetic electron” models of the 20th century (due to Mie, Einstein, Dirac) and many others, had foundered.

It is indeed so that parts of your (latter) list are derivative of one another – but it could be argued that the primary list (of 6) are also not primary. For example, I would not put all of charge, mass, and length there. I do not thing charge is a primary starting point at all (though I know current comes into the MKSA system). Also one can argue that mass and (inverse) time are related. Maybe I would add stuff instead – for example Planck’s constant hbar. Plus, there is the argument I have been making as to whether space and time, or their inverses are more primary.

After setting up the list, Martin and I set out to try to derive the starting point of where this all came from using the simplest possible ansatz. Now here comes the problem: as you say to a “newbie” that any of this should be feasible sounds rather unlikely.  Read no further: the man is clearly a nutter. No-one could do that! Just not possible. Forget about it!

At the same time, as things stand in 2015,  there are a large number of “competing” “theories” (as David points out), of which the WvdM view is only one. The present group, just by themselves, has lots! Not only that  - many of the others are more appealing on the surface – they speak to “common sense” notions which dismiss things many anyway find hard to understand – such as the limiting velocity of light, for example. Some speak to “familiar” science fiction, such as FTL travel and “many worlds” time travel that everyone has seen on TV and in the movies. The WvdM view is, relatively, extremely hard. Far easier to dismiss it and look, first, at something else. The fact that other “theories” may raise more problems than they solve, and may even be in direct conflict with aspects of experiment, is taken to be irrelevant. If one fails to understand so many things already, what is a few more?

Now I am very much in favour of saying what goes into a theory – and what comes out. The net balance then. A couple of years ago I gave a series of lectures on “all of science”. These took some of the base theories, such as quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and the “standard model” and explained what went in and what came out-  in terms meant for the understanding of (erudite) mothers. You can look at most of these if you like as they are up on Vimeo (thanks Nick!). Just google “Williamson physics vimeo” – should do it! The bottom line of those lectures is that there is an awful lot that goes into the foundation of current physics. The “standard model has over fifty “free parameters” (see above and below). In my view this is far too many.

On the other hand there are many theories out there purporting to deal with the “central mystery of physics”. One thing. These may explain a particular experiment in an alternative way – but in doing so they raise a lot of other issues in conflict with other experiment – which is further ignored. This has become all too fashionable – even for  so called”mainstream” theories (such as QCD) which are clearly and fundamentally in conflict with experiment. This is thought by many nowadays to be ok. For me, it is not.

Ok .. here is a (short) list of what one would really like to understand. Feel free to add to it


·   h

·   e

·   nature of space and time

·   CPT

·   Boltzmann constant

·   Non-existence magnetic monopoles

·   Gravitons

·   Allowed black body modes

·   Bell

·   Red shift

·   3K background radiation

·   Quantisation of e

·   Mass

·   Spin

·   g-2

·   Pauli principle

·       Uncertainty principle

·   Origin of universe

·   Flatness of universe

·   Conservation laws (times n!)

·   Energy ... mass

·   Momentum .... Force

·   Angular momentum

·   why is c constant?

·   and why 300 000 000 m/s?

·   wave-particle duality

·   Baryon number (6)

·   why only qqq and qq*

·   Lepton number (3) (3 generations puzzle)

·   SU(3) quarks

·   SU(3) gluons

·   neutrinos

·   coupling constant EM

·   coupling constant EW

·   coupling constant S (plus why running coupling constant)

·   Postulate of equivalence

·       Quantum measurement collapse

·       Dark matter


·   First law of thermodynamics (Energy conservation)

·   Higgs

·   Spontaneous symmetry breaking

·   Mach’s principle

·   Poincaré stresses

·       Why 4-D?

·       Why (apparently) 3D

·       …..
Good ho. Now the solution of Hilbert’s sixth should, if it is indeed a solution, explain all of these, just and no more, in terms of an axiomatic starting set. That is it should, for example, say why there is an SU(3) of flavour AND why the only observed states within this large group are in the subset of either qqq or qqbar. It should get the SU(2) of spin. Explain the U(1) of electromagnetism and quantum solutions. It should either predict the whole lot, or remove their necessity (e.g for “spontaneous symmetry breaking) – and explain why this is the case. Big problem!

Ok – those particular “big problems” (SU(3) etc .. not the whole list) ARE derived from the new theory. So too are observed symmetries, for example CPT. What has charge got to do with parity and time-reversal? Indeed. Easy to understand if you take charge to result from an electromagnetic localisation in a non-trivial topology. Other, things which fall (I’m just going up the list) are the  Poincare stresses, why apparently 3D, Higgs (not needed). The generations mystery, dark matter, the Pauli principle (my 2012 paper) and the allowed black body modes. This is quite a lot. No a-priori quarks

Hodge keeps shouting “what goes in”. John I (and Richard, Chip, John M, Viv, Hagen, Albrecht) have already said what goes in in both the paper and in lots of these emails. Never mind: I will say it again.

What goes in (to mine) is space (and its inversion), time (and its inversion) and (root) energy.

That is not really fair since there is – in fact more. For one thing there is a specific way in which space and time go in – for me as a restricted Dirac-Clifford algebra. R Ä Cl(1,3) – (as opposed to a general Dirac algebra which is C Ä Cl(1,3). Hence it contains not just space and time but the experimentally observed properties of “space” and “time”.  So one could better say that what goes in is this restricted algebra, root energy and no more.

Now this algebra includes the properties of “multiplication” “division” (and hence inversion as mentioned above) “addition” and “subtraction”. You may think the latter set are a given – but they are anything but. What does it actually MEAN to divide space by time. What is the underlying physical process that the (human invention of) “division” is meant to represent in reality? For this to be properly explained you need my and Martins paper on “division and the algebra of reality”. Coming soon!

What does NOT go in are some of the numerical values mentioned above – although given some values (e.g. h) one can calculate others (e.g. e).

So- what else comes out in payment for the input. One gets the Maxwell equations – all four of them and not just 2 as in Jackson. As a bonus one gets four more – connecting current and spin. One gets out the SU(2) of spin and SU(3) of flavour. One can derive U(1) as a simple projection of the better symmetry in eq 21 (e.g. eq 22). In other words one derives a big chunk of the starting assumptions of the standard model. One derives the point-like (as opposed to the point) interaction of elementary leptons. One gets the starting point of QED, while fixing some of the renormalisation problems. One understands the origin of CPT. One gets out the origin of the Poincare stresses (which bind the electron charge). One gets out a fully-relativistic wave function for the photon. One gets out the reason for the quantisation of travelling electromagnetic waves. One gets a possible explanation for dark matter. One gets out a possible reason for black-body quantisation. One gets out a new solution of the new equations corresponding to a charged, spin half pair or particles identified with the electron and the positron. I think, given the Dirac algebra existed already and that I have only made it simpler and more specific, this is net positive. What do you think?

Anyway, this is only the beginning. One has a new set of equations of motion to play with, just waiting for people to start finding more particular solutions.

More comments below (in blue)

________________________________
From: af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 4:00 PM
To: John Williamson
Cc: Mark, Martin van der; general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey; pete at leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson
Subject: Aw: RE: RE: [General] Nature of charge
Privet, Ivan:  (Russian hi---more fun!)

I'v been writting "Clifford" where I should have been writting conventional/Grassmann/Clifford.  I.e., some version of the basic idea (toy model) that looks and smells like stuff found in no-too-esoteric lit.  Those more used to using than creating/discovering math find it difficult to translate to a known background.  (Same with languages, if two are learned without explicit connection, one may be able to speak both fluently but not able to translate between them, in real time anyway.)

You are right that people seem to have trouble understanding what I am talking about.

I find it highly likely that you, Albrecht and John M. are going in circles.

I agree about John M. and Albrecht! (sorry guys – you probably think the same about me!).

 For BASIC physics the set of units is: {e,m,l (x3),t}, that is, 6 entities.  On the hand, in physics theories there are many more inserted items: e.g., momentum, energy, wave, angular mommentum, spin, field, Compton wave length, deBroglie wave, electron, position, quark, ....... etc., etc.  Thus, among the latter set, there has to be gobs of redundancy,

True: see above

which makes it possible to "derive" (actually extract) various constants and magic numbers from other various combinations thereof!

Agreed. There is a lot of numerology bullshit out there. Please note, I’m not primarily about numbers, but about a new set of differential equations with new solutions.

  If you wish to argue that this is not the case, then it might be smart to so present your story(s) by starting from an explicit list of what your are inputting (and thereby NOT explaining) and present arguments why what your choice of inputs is, is resonable given available emperical evidence.

Good point. Have tried to do this. I thought that was what I was doing in saying what went in (space, time and root-energy) and in defining the algebra to be used. Obviously, this is not enough to get this across to most folk.

 For one thing, this gives the newby a shot at determining with relatively litte time invested whether what you intend to do is at all feasible given his (the newby's) state of knowldege.

Sorry, but hard stuff is just hard – otherwise loads of other folk would have solved the problem long ago. Even when discovered by another and then explained it remains hard.

  Of course, all conceivable refs, will be newbys in YOUR game.  This is where I stumble; usually I just assume that this can be done and give it a go---until entropy diverges and I quit.

You and me both. I tried it myself for a decade, gave up and went into engineering – then met Martin. Two has been enough!

For what it's worth,  Al

Ciao, John.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151130/e1b1c611/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list