[General] Nature of charge

Joakim Pettersson joakimbits at gmail.com
Mon Nov 30 12:54:43 PST 2015


Vivian: What if you invited John Williamson to write the first chapter 
of your book?
Besides, a Kickstarter campain for that book could probably finance 
John's work on that chapter and more ;-)!
BR/joakim

On 2015-11-30 12:55, Vivian Robinson wrote:
> Johns W, H and All
>
> I would like to add a little to the discussion, particularly John 
> Hodge's request for "What are the fundamentals of the universe? In 
> doing so I wish to shorten John W's list somewhat.
>
> We have basic physical constants.
> Planck's constant h
> Electric charge e
> Gravitational constant G
> Electric permittivity𝜀o
> Magnetic permeabilityµo
>
> On top of those we have properties of matter:
> Structure?
> Massm
> Angular momentumIω (spin and intrinsic spin)
>
> Fundamental physical principles:
> Conservation of energy, momentum, parity
> Spacex, y, z of any value (Empty space has quite a lot of other 
> interesting properties, the greatest of which are 𝜀o and µo)
> Position(wrt an observer)Δx, Δy, Δz from origin x = y = z = 0
> Time (wrt an observer)t
> Inverse timeν (frequency)
>
> I may have left out some and I am sure others will add those I have 
> missed.
>
> Then you have derived properties,
> velocityd(x,y,z)/dt
> c= 1/(𝜀oµo)^2
> EnergyE = mc^2 = hν
> Temperature
> Pressure
> Special and general relativity theories
> etc.
>
> The list of derived properties gets quite large. I would like to go so 
> far and suggest some physical principles, e.g., Pauli's exclusion 
> principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are derived 
> properties based upon the structure of matter. You can argue whether 
> energy is derived or fundamental, in the latter case, frequency and 
> mass are derived.
>
> As best I can work out this discussion group has been about one of 
> those properties of matter, namely structure. What started out s a 
> discussion on the structure of photons has been extended to proposals 
> for the structure of electrons. While new ideas are welcome, they 
> should fit within a few parameters:-
> 1Known or demonstrable physical particles and principles. The standard 
> model for the structure of sub atomic particles already has 61 
> fundamental particles (36 quarks, 12 leptons, 8 gluons and 5 bosons 
> (including the photon). Of those, none of the 36 quarks and 8 gluons 
> have been separately isolated and identified (they are all derived 
> from experiment and mathematics). Only two combinations of two of the 
> quarks form stable nucleons. Only three leptons, electron and electron 
> and anti-electron neutrino, are known to be stable. The demonstration 
> of their physical principles is almost entirely complex mathematics. 
> Increasing that number and complexity on an "it matches a couple of 
> properties" basis is not going to impress anyone unless it answers a 
> lot of other questions.
> 2Electrons don't exist in isolation. They interact with protons, 
> neutrons and photons in complex manners. If you wish your thoughts to 
> be considered seriously it would be advantageous to show how your 
> structure solves some of the unknowns about those other particles and 
> some of the complex interactions.
> 3Demonstrate how a proposed structure matches known properties of 
> electrons and preferably predicts unknown properties.
> 4From a personal perspective I would also add that if you can show how 
> your structure leads to what I call derived properties, Pauli's and 
> Heisenberg's principles, relativity etc. that is so much the better.
>
> Having said that, even if you do, there is no guarantee that your 
> ideas will be taken seriously.
>
> I now revert to John H's question, "What are the fundamentals of the 
> universe?" Apart from those listed above and some I may have missed 
> out, my contention is that all matter is made of the same "stuff" 
> (quoting MvdM), and that stuff is photons. Thus the importance of the 
> SPIE conference and this discussion group on "what is a photon?" That 
> the photon is not a well understood entity does not prevent it from 
> being used as the basis of other structures, as long as  known 
> properties are acknowledged. Like others I contend that the electron 
> is a photon (of a particular lower energy) that makes two revolutions 
> within its wavelength to become the particle that is the electron. In 
> order to physically rotate, it must continually emit and absorb 
> (virtual) photons at a constant rate that matches its angular momentum 
> (Iω), giving it the property of electric charge. Its spin is angular 
> momentum, which is made up of the mass of the photon, m = hν/c^2, 
> travelling in a circle of radius hbar/2mc at the speed of light. As it 
> moves, its structure means that it automatically moves according to 
> the special relativity corrections, with the added proviso that its 
> radius must diminish as its velocity increases. This is why the 
> electron is observed as a point particle when scattered at high 
> energy. Its magnetic moment is generated as a combination of the 
> rotating charge and the residual magnetic moment of photon's B field.
>
> That structure is also the key to Einstein's E = mc^2 equation. When 
> the photon is travelling in a circle, it is mass with angular 
> momentum Iω = half hbar. Unlocking its angular momentum converts it to 
> a linear photon with energy E = mc^2. That model makes a number of 
> testable predictions of unknown electron properties. The two 
> polarities of electric charge are the direction the photon that is the 
> particle rotates wrt its magnetic field. Different charges are mirror 
> images of each other. Spin is quantised because an electron can only 
> spin one way to the other, wrt an observer. The different states of 
> spin are merely "other side of the page" images (measurements) of the 
> same rotating photon.
>
> I also suggest that same model is the basis of the other particles, 
> proton, neutron and neutrino. That enables a good number of properties 
> of the protons and neutrons to be matched (I haven't tried them all), 
> as well as predicting quite a few unknown properties that cn be tested 
> experimentally. It also gives a structure and maximum mass for 
> (electron) neutrinos and shows why they effectively travel at the 
> speed of light c, even though they have mass. The measured diameter of 
> the central core of the nucleons, ≈ 0.105 fm, exactly matches the 
> radius predicted under this model, namely r = hbar/2mc.
>
> The structure of the nucleons is responsible the generation of the 
> elementary particles. The muons and pions. the longest lived 
> elementary particles, exist inside the nucleons at rest. The remainder 
> are only generated when accelerated nucleons, which have an increased 
> frequency and hence mass, are stopped in a collision. The nucleons now 
> have excess energy of which they must rid themselves because their 
> frequencies are no longer stable under their rest time frame 
> reference. They do so by cascading through a series of quasi stable 
> oscillations, continually generating and emitting muons and pions as 
> circular photons and also energy as linear photons. Muons are 1/9th 
> the fundamental proton frequency and are a single oscillation, giving 
> them angular momentum half hbar. Pions are two oscillations combined, 
> 1/9th plus 1/27th, giving them angular momentum 0 or 1 x hbar and 
> positive, neutral or negative charge depending upon their combination.
>
> So it goes on. The proposed nucleon structure makes it very easy to 
> understand nuclear binding and the structure of nuclei. You can get 
> some more details at my website www.universephysics.com 
> <http://www.universephysics.com>. I have compiled everything into a 
> publication, Understanding the Physical Universe, of which the website 
> gives over 10% of what is in the book. I must get some time one day to 
> take it a little further.
>
> In the second chapter I suggest how special relativity is a derived 
> property from the structure of matter. In the last chapters I suggest 
> how general relativity is a derived property from the properties of 
> photons and the principle of conservation of energy.
>
> In summary to John H's question, the fundamentals of the universe are 
> a few physical constants, some conservation (and other) principles and 
> the structure of matter based upon the existence of photons. Most of 
> the other properties, special and general relativity, uncertainty and 
> exclusion principles, temperature, etc are derived. Which brings us 
> back to "What is a photon". I am prepared to say "I don't fully 
> understand, but that should stop it from being used in a theory.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv Robinson
>
>
> On 30/11/2015, at 3:07 PM, John Williamson 
> <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 manyfolk 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 20^th 
>> 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 forso 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 
>> thePoincare 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. RÄCl(1,3) – (as opposed to a 
>> general Dirac algebra which is CÄCl(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 
>> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>[af.kracklauer at web.de 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Nick 
>> Bailey;pete at leathergoth.com <mailto: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 talkingabout.
>>
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of 
>> Light and Particles General Discussion List atviv at universephysics.com 
>> <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
>> <a 
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at joakimbits at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151130/675ba581/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list