[General] nature of light particles & theories

[John Williamson]

Hello everyone .. forgot the Selleri extract (page ten from the 180 pages or so of his "Weak Relativity")

It shows how useful experiment is in making people think more precisely. The fact that non-perturbative theories (QCD, Strings, branes and so on) are immune to experimental disproof (essential because they do not predict anything anyway!) makes such things all the more insidious.

... here it is in red, with discussion afterwards...


Herbert Dingle, professor of History and Philosophy of Science in London, in the fifties and early sixties fought a battle against some features of the relativity theory, in particular against the asymmetrical ageing present in the clock paradox argument. He believed that the slowing down of moving clocks was pure fantasy. This idea has of course been demolished by direct experimental evidence, collected after his time. Nevertheless, his work has left posterity a rare jewel: the syllogism bearing his name. Given that syllogism is a technical model of perfect deduction, its consequences are absolutely necessary for any person accepting rational thinking in science. Dingle’s syllogism is the following [2-6]:

1. (Main premise) According to the postulate of relativity, if two bodies (for example two identical clocks) separate and reunite, there is no observable phenomenon that will show in an absolute sense that one rather than the other has moved.
2. (Minor premise) If upon reunion, one clock were retarded by a quantity depending on its relative motion, and the other not, that phenomenon would show that the first clock had moved (in an observer independent “absolute” sense) and not the second.

3. (Conclusion) Hence, if the postulate of relativity is true, the clocks must be retarded equally or not at all: in either case, their readings will concord upon reunion if they agreed at separation. If a difference between the two readings were to show up, the postulate of relativity cannot be true.

Today it can be said that the asymmetrical behaviour of the two clocks is empirically certain (muons in cosmic rays, experiment with the CERN muon storage ring, experiments with linear beams of unstable particles, Hafele and Keating experiment). Therefore, as a consequence of point 3. above, the postulate of relativity must somehow be negated. Actually, in recent times there are some authors who think that “theory of relativity” is just a name, not to be taken too literally. The total relativism which the theory could seem to embody is now perceived to be only an illusion. One can conclude that not all is relative in relativity, because this theory contains also some features that are observer independent, then features which are absolute! As Dingle wrote: “It should be obvious that if there is an absolute effect which is a function of velocity, then the velocity must be absolute. No manipulation of formulae or devising of ingenious experiments can alter that simple fact.” [2-7]

Sounds good doesn't it. Problem is, as usual, in the starting premise. It is kind of true - but shows weak thinking. Conclusion then drawn from this sound logical - but reveal more about the authors understanding of the theory than they provide a test of it.

What is said is so in the particular case envisaged, but not in any more general cases.

Consider three clocks .. one stay at home, one clock off to the left (the left clock) the other to the right (the right clock). Imagine mister left and miss right have strict instructions of how much and when (on their own clocks) to accelerate and decelerate. Same instructions for both. Later both clocks are brought back to the third clock (the home clock). Indeed if one takes the left clock left then reverses it to go right, then brings it home and stops it it will show a time shorter than the home clock. Similarly if one takes the right clock right then reverses it to go left and brings it home it will also show a time shorter than the home clock. Checking the right clock to the left clock will reveal, indeed, that they still agree, precisely, with one another, provided only the acceleration history was symmetrical for both. The difference with the home clock - is that the acceleration has put both moving clocks into successively different inertial frames (this is the same problems that some commentators have with their (lack of understanding of) the Sagnac effect). Everything following from the initial lack of understanding, is, while perfectly logically consistent, simply further bullshit. It negates only that version of relativity present in the heads of the thinkers.

This is not to say at all that either Dingle or Selleri were full of shit - on the contrary this gets to the precise point and distinction to be made - it just illustrates how half-understanding can be a dangerous thing.

As always - GIGO.

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: John Williamson
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 10:54 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Nick Bailey
Subject: RE: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hello Al and everyone ... Me too ... I'll go blue ...
________________________________
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: Sunday, October 11, 2015 8:33 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Joakim Pettersson; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; Nick Bailey
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hi John:

Some initial reactions interspersed below.

Gesendet: Samstag, 10. Oktober 2015 um 12:24 Uhr
Von: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "Nick Bailey" <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>, "Anthony Booth" <abooth at ieee.org>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Betreff: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
John W,
Thank you for that nice and long email. Is it, or is it not amazing that I agree completely, I am wondering...
Very best,
Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 10 okt. 2015 om 01:39 heeft John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<UrlBlockedError.aspx>> het volgende geschreven:

Hello Al,

I think it is fundamentally correct that, eventually, everything should be brought back to such things as space and time, if only for the fact that the word we construct in our heads (in the second world of Popper) is of this form.

I agree as well that Field is a construct – and a poorly understood one at that – of things that have a more fundamental underlying nature. I think you are quite wrong, however, to dismiss energy and momentum as being always derivative of x(t) and to state that all measurement is primarily of x(t).  There are certainly a class of experiments which measure position to some reasonable accuracy for practical purposes, and from which energy and momentum may be derived. It is certainly very interesting, philosophically, to take spatial position as a function of time as the primary starting point and to see how far that gets you. I would be delighted to spend a week (or more!) allowing only that premise and getting deeply into all the ramifications. I do not, presently, think that goes nearly far enough in describing all of reality.
AK: I take it (with resurvation to change my mind) that, only those things have ontological essence for which there is the need of a unit (space, time, mass, charge, whatever).

Things with units are also a human invention and also conventional .. next step is to merge space and time. Measure length units in light-nanoseconds ....
All the rest are deduced.  Sometimes they are deduced by comparison with an already elsewhere deduced entity from valid measurements of unit-entites.  This leads to false impression that they  are directly measeasred.
Indeed!
  In fact, one should have dug deeper.

There are, however, other measurements where it is energy and/or momentum that are measured more precisely (in the sense of the uncertainty principle) and it is precisely position and time that are uncertain. It happens that it is this class of experiment (at CERN or in what is now called nanoelectronics) in which I have been involved in my professional career. You need not feel this weds me to this standpoint, however, I am very happy (delighted!) to look at things from many different perspectives. It remains, however, simply not correct to state that all experiment boils down to measurements of x(t) and that everything we know is derived from this. Many experiments are ignorant of position, not only because it was not measured (though this may often be the case), nor even because of the diktat of the uncertainty relation, but simply because when you look at “particles” in the nano regime (as I have done personally in many experiments) they are simply fuzzy at a scale much larger than your resolution. They look really much more like what one would expect from quantum mechanics (in its wave-mechanics guise).

Now one may ascribe this, at a deeper level, to the zitterbewegung at some frequency high compared with the temporal resolution of the experiment(why not indeed!).  And think that one may “really” be able to get x(t) anyway. Well the “why not” comes from the derivation of the zitterbewegung itself (see Dirac’s textbook, where he performs the direct integration). It is indeed straightforwards to get this, but if you look at how it comes in there it comes in as a mass. That is mass is described as a high frequency vibration. That vibration is related to the frequency from this mass-as-energy (in fact it is twice this – famously). What this means is that, firstly, inverse time is taken in that context as more fundamental than time (See, e.g. Jan Hilgevoord on the uncertainty principle). Also, this inverse time is derived from that thing we call energy (rest energy as mass here). One sees that one is already two steps away here from a consideration of time as fundamental. Energy gives inverse time. The proper mechanism for inversion must then be considered in describing “time” from this.  Also, experiment itself does not support this (simple) position. If the momentum were indeed oscillating at lightspeed, as the Dirac Solution suggests, sticking a Duffield bargepole in there should result in it being walloped by the full electron mass at lightspeed from time to time. Never happens! All this momentum is perfectly masked. One actually observes the electron as being spread perfectly smoothly, according to the wave-function envelope of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Intriguing isn’t it?
AK: Among humans, certain imaginary entities have been discussed so long and often, that they are taken for real.  Religion provides copious examples.  Getting beyond the imaginary world takes a special discipline.  In my view, momentum and energy are right up there with angels, devils, saints and spirits of many versions.  Useful, but just conceptually so.
Could not agree more. It is fun to take on different base starting points and look at the possibilities. We need to start from multiple sets of these possibilities - including that space and time themselves are merely derived from, for example, inter-actions which are (at base) momentum transfers. Why not?

In my view a proper theory needs to address the fundaments of both space and time AND energy and momentum (as well as a few other things besides). Also, as an aside, in my view, inverse time IS more fundamental then time – but a proper discussion of that is not amenable to a few emails. So - x(1/t) then rather than x(t). Even then – that would only be the start of the discussion of what the true fundamentals are…

AK:  Consitency is not just a matter of reconciliation in your (or mine or whoever's) mind but also with all the other tradition including lexicographical, scientific-cultural and plane historical.
Oh no it isn't. It is simple to set up many internally self-consistent systems. Most of the historical ones (including much of the presumptions on different bits of the internet), are just plain silly. The ultimate question is, which of these, if any solves Hilbert's sixth.
The term "field" in physics has a deep and pervasive connection with Maxwell and ....   So, finally, we are locked in to positions that cannot be reinterpreted without jumping outside the box of meaningful communication.
Agreed that this is hard. We are, however, pretty smart. It should not be beyond us.
In my view (in the humble sense) "fields" cannot be taken as material entities, rather only as imaginary constructs or stand in's for something else, which to me should be the totality of Gaussian "interaction" with other charges.
Let's try then, for the sake of communication, an agreed ansatz between you and I. Fields are, precisely, not material. They are everything that "material" is not.

Coming to the muon decay experiments and time dilation. Yes I can help – a little at least. The cosmic ray muons were suggestive of relativistically extended muon lifetimes. I looked at muons, with tens of metres between the beam momentum station and the main detector but not with a view to measuring muon decay. The muon lifetime is a couple of microseconds – but that is nearly a kilometre at lightspeed. Better have been muon storage ring experiments. Muons do live longer – much longer – perfectly consistently with relativity (Bailey at al 1977).
AK: I too know the conventional INTERPRETATION of muon decay experiements.  So far so good, IF all the inputs into that interpretation (especially the covert or implicit ones) are correct.  In view of the rather abvious contradictions in the description of the theoretical explantion of these effects, including the fact that you and I and all others are, relative to the various cosmic rays passing us by the billions per nanoscond,  Lorentz-FitzGearld contracted to multiple extents in every dimention by presumed relativistic consequences on molecular forces, etc. etc.
No - they do not physically contract us - and more than we contract them. It is only the fuidity of space and time required for the linearity of field and energy. The measurement of space and time that is affected. Nothing material. One mans space is another mans time - and vice versa. Has to be. Otherwise fundamental currents are not conserved (most importantly -energy!).
  After all that squeezing, wouldn't we be dried up?  There's a better explantion---we just have to find it!
Indeed - but the one you sketch above is not the conventional explanation.

  In accelerator experiments, could it be that an incorrect assumpton on the location of the generation of the precursor pi's is in play?  Can one expclude the possiblitiy that the beam is making more muons as it moves along?  This is what I think is happening in the atomosphere, at least.  (Here I don't know if the professional, origional literature correcty, or at all, considers the generation of muons at lower altitudes---I do know that the discussions in texts on SR don't even mention the possiblity.)

No Al, this CAN be excluded. In bubble chamber experiments one sees both the genesis and decay of individual particles. The whole life from start to finish. No room for any magic appearance of extra particles in between. Forget about it!
  BTW, the maths for the alternative explanations could be identical to that from SR if exponentials, i.e., effects proportional to the 1st derivative, are in play.  BTW(2), this would offer another good explantion for the lack of evidence for LF contraction.  It happens only to VIRTUAL images of things.
As I said above, this is indeed closer to the conventional, as I understand it, view.


What I HAVE looked at are the  (much shorter lived) charged particles such as pions. These have a lifetime of a 26 nanoseconds or so – that’s about 26 feet at lightspeed – giving a probability of free flight decay to muons. Again – one hundred percent consistent with relativity and the slowing of clocks. There is a HUGE literature on this.  What one observes is that the straighter paths in bubble chambers go a lot further on average) than the very slightly curved ones. Perfectly consistently with the time dilation in relativity.

Good start is (the references from) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles. This does not mean, of course, that this is the only way to explain this – but it is certainly a well-established experimental measurement that any proper theory must be consistent with. One cannot brush it away as never having been measured.
AK:  It is possible that the measurements are defectiive too, but without doubt the explantion of the effect is AT LEAST lexocographcally nonsense.
I think there is some truth in this. I have been looking at some of the explanations on the internet for such things as the Sagnac effect (perfectly consistent with SR - though often argued otherwise), the Dingle syllogism (reproduced below - but way of the point) and so on ...
The problem is that many writers on relativity simple do not get it themselves, yet try to "educate" others. Selleri, talking about Dingle - completely misses the point of the effect of acceleration on the change of reference frames.

Now coming to fields and test particles. You keep saying that fields are defined with respect to (infinitesimally charged) test particles. No they are not. This is just a textbook analogy. As the Irishman (standing on the dry ground by the bog) said to the upper-class twit in the slowly sinking SUV, If you want to get to (your destination) you do not want to start from here.

Fields are what they are –like it or not – understand it or not. They exist whether or not one measures them, either with a real or an imaginary test instrument. I think there is a BIG problem in the definition and understanding of fields, but that this is just not it. The putative and non-existent “test” particle is just what? A “source” of field. One is trying to define field by imagining an infinitesimal mass with field coming out of it. Get real! This is not just a circular argument – it is a random wavy line with ill-defined ends (or only one end!) argument. It does not get to the point. More precisely it attempts to define- absurdly – the point origin of a non-existent thing. It is as bad as taking a Duffield bargepole (carefully neutral except for the “test charge” stuck on its end) – sticking this into an exploding whirlpool, detecting the force and torque on the other end and ascribing the radial to one mysterious vector field and the transverse to another.  I remember meeting the test charge analogy for the first time, at secondary school, and, even then, thinking “pardon?” (in between playing Stuart Smith at chess at the back of the class – wonder what happened to him?).

AK: John, if a "test particle" is to see a field at all, then it must carry (be-?) a charge.  Check any history of the E&M.
I know - this is what I'm saying. There may be a history about it - but there are "histories" about dragons too. Both mythical. So what?
Thus, if it carries a charge, them Maxwell's equations say it emits E&M fields.  In view of the fact that "infinitesimal" test charges are obviously imaginary constructs to bridge the gap between extent situations and pure fields, one has here an infinitesimal contradtion!
True!
Better analyze a toy universe of two (2!) point charges.  If one seeks a closed set of equations of motion for this universe, one gets a set of equations in which the E&M fields have been eliminated for mathematical redundancy (logical) reasons.
See what you mean but do not agree. One needs at least enough degrees of freedom to describe the retarded potentials and special relativity. Fields are an efficient (though not the only) way of doing this.
  This tells those of us who at least try to make everything fit together without contradiction, that fields as such are superfluous.  It does not seem likely that if now one adds a third charge to the toy universe, and then a 4th, etc. that the situation will somehow result in magnificent verification of current physics folklore!
Absolutely. This is all silly. Lets agree on that and stop doing it!

A “test particle” is just a thought construct.  Not only is there no test particle, there is no instrument to measure the supposed force that the field would exert on such a mythical object. You are absolutely right that this idea is far too floppy and ill-defined to be considered fundamental if that is what you are trying to say. For me it is not, has never been and will never be the way I think about fields. I was nerdy enough to look at fields in terms of exploding capacitors before meeting them at school – and lucky enough to have a dad (ref: Grahame Williamson: private communication) who could explain something of the “why” (and why not!) fairly early on. Exploding capacitors need no test particle! Fields are, in my present view, more things that are OF space and time (and energy) rather than IN space and time. I really ought to try to write a paper about this (oh – I have – what was the reference again – SPIE 2015, FFP14, MENDEL12, CYBCOM08…).

There is no such thing as a test particle except as concept in (elementary) books. I think the idea that there may exist a thing – the vector electric field Exyz (x,y,z,t) defined microscopically at each point in space and time and with a distinct direction xyz misses the point of their proper origin and nature so completely that it is (pretty much) completely absurd. Such a notion is both far too complex (seven components) and far too simple (minded). The fact that the notion (or gross over-simplifications of it) is pretty much universal in starting textbooks notwithstanding.
Really, a proper definition of the x component of Electric field, both in the proper maths and in the understanding of the underlying physics this represents, must come from understanding the physical meaning of the division of the time component of the 4-vector-potential wave by a little bit of space in the x direction. Two base components for a stationary charge (four if one includes the division of space by time as separate – only non-zero in conventional electromagnetism for a moving charge though), not seven! The result, really, a directed areal component, not a mere vector!  Understanding this is hard. Very hard. Conceptually, mind-blowingly hard. Famously, Feynmann himself did not get it. Not even a bit! That other clever people did not get it does not mean it is not worth thinking about! It begs (at least-depending how you count them) two questions immediately of course. Firstly, what is a 4-vector potential (or at least- what is charge?). Secondly: what are space and time? That is getting down to fundamentals. That is what we need to do – not mystify ourselves and block our own thought processes by starting from somewhere silly. In this you are absolutely, completely, one hundred percent (minus delta!) correct! Good point!

AK: Seems to me that you are "in the weeds" of some fascinating mathmatical structure here (been there, done (something like) that, too).  Instinct tells us, that no amount of rearranging of the inappropriate inputs gets out of the "do-loop."  After much waisted effort, I now take it that,  the primative elements cannot be explained logically---or by mortals at all.
This may be true - but I'm still going to have some fun trying!
Space, time, charge (or equivalent, as yet unidentified, alternatives) are likely optimum choices.  The goal of science then is to find the structure these entities permit; by formal logic, this could be possible. However, it is to my best info, not established that this possiblity is finite!  Gödel seems to say it isn't! But he had his troubles too!
Godel was derivative of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstien later changed his mind. I think there is ultimate truth in that the very basics may remain un-encompassed. The best one can do is to fortly get to the basics,  then invent from these something that describes all of reality - just and no more. It is easy to prove that there is only one such system (if it exists at all). That will then solve Hilbert's sixth and be good enough for me to die happy.

AK:  BTW(3)  None of my critical stances are unique or original to me.  There is an extensive literature on each of them too.  However, this liteature does not include resolutions.  Rather it illustrates the functioning of  group-think, the main weapon of which is to just ignore the "misguided, unwashed critic",  punctuated by a few fires at some stake.  Fortunately, I don't now have to earn a living at this.
Hihi. My current position at least has no historical position of which I am aware. Whether this is a step beyond or beside the point of progress remains to be seen.

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>] on behalf of A. F. Kracklauer [af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 8:09 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories


Hi John:

Business before pleasure:  regarding a visit here, that is of course possible, although I don't now know when we might be spending time in Karlsruhe where our son lives with family.  And, Weimar is inconveniently far from Brussels, etc. (ca. 5-6 hours on the Autobahn or train (waiting time included) etc. to be undertaken by busy folks with more on their plate than socializing.

Professionally useful opportunities in this area that I'm aware of include Klaus Gürlebeck here in Weimar---deep into the math extending Clifford Algebras, etc. and the Uni in Jena.  Unfortunately, after the incorporation of that uni into the West German system, they have become hyper conscious of their vulnerability to association with "quacks" who question orthodoxy, etc. I.e., my contacts there a null in spite of the convenience (ca. 20 KM). Moreover, I'm unaware that any high energy work goes on there, mostly optics and related areas (Zeitz' optics for Soviet spy satellites were made in Jena 30 years ago).  However, Leipzig is not far, if you have any interest in what might be there.

In response to points made below:  that fields are defined in terms of their effect on nonexistent entities, to my mind, doubles the reason to regard them as fictitious.

Energy and momentum cannot be directly measured.  In stead x(t) (in one form or another) is measured and E and m calculated therefrom.  Write-ups notwithstanding, sometimes the calculation is done by the measuring device manufacturer and the units on the dial are in terms of E or whatever, but when considered seriously, it always reduces to x(t).

"Photons" are (parts of) quantized fields.  Again, this doubles the troubles of using them for the primative elements of a theory.  Might still be workable, but at a minimum new words and ideas are needed to avoid a castle in the sky for which dimensional still unfolds without inconsistency.  Your 98 paper was a fun and clear read, but still I couldn't jump on that band wagon for the reasons I mentioned.

Regarding other possible collaboration, about all I can imagine that I could contribute to your line of work might be some philosophical stuff in introductions.  There is one issue, however, where you might be in position to really help me with a project I'm preparing for.  It is this: all the text book presentations of the muon decay proof of time dilation seem to consider that all the pi's to muons are generated at high altitude.  However, ray cosmic rays, H+, He+ and higher reach the surface of the earth too. Thus, some survive into lower altitudes where they also would initiate the pi->muon->electron cascade exploited in the experiments.  That is, there is good reason to expect evidence of muons all the way to the ground utterly without time dilation. I'm ginning up to do a calculation based on reasonable assumptions about the nuclear chemistry in the atmosphere (where I would profit from knowledgeable friends) BTW, I regard both Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and time dilation as perspective effects: no actual modification of extensions or intervals actually occurs, rather the projection onto an observers "eyes" is modified just as in classical optics.

So, in the mean time, best regards,  Al




On 30.09.2015 06:48, John Williamson wrote:
Hello Al,

Thanks for your well-considered reply.

This picks up on an unfinished conversation in San Diego, in the early hours in the bar at Hotel Solamar, between you and me and a few others on the ontological basis of reality. You were saying some very interesting things, but we had distraction from others, ran out of time and we were both, by then, a little the worse for wear. My feeling is that you went pretty deep – but not yet quite deep enough. You and me both! Perhaps we can help one another.

I take your point about the hypothetical “charged test particle” beloved of text books. Unfortunately, no such particle exists with which to probe stuff. The lightest stable particle we have is the electron, the smallest the proton. Muons are useful in that they are far smaller than the electron, long lived enough to be useful and far simpler than the proton. It was fun playing with 200 GeV muons in my youth – but that does not give all the answers either as one remains a monkey – essentially banging the rocks together and going OOOH! at whatever comes out.

I like your argument about the ontological basis being of (as I understood it late that night  – though forgive me if this is far too simple) trajectories in space through time and I think one can, indeed, get a long way thinking from this basis. Unfortunately, in experiment, it is usually energy and momentum that one measures directly and not (the conjugate variables) space and time. One knows the energy (and momentum) of a photon fairly precisely, but have correspondingly far less information about its time (and position). Yo – that photon hit me – it was blue and it came from that direction. Likewise, in a high energy scattering experiment, one gets the energy and momentum of all the particles pretty precisely, that the interaction was point-like down to 10-18m, but one (even with the best photographic emulsions) only gets the position to within a micron or so. This is 36 orders of magnitude of uncertainty in a volume!. Not good for fixing a trajectory!

Coming back to theory. I could not agree more with - “why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling?”. This is exactly the point. Indeed, the discussion in our 1997 paper does not go nearly far enough. This work is, however, nearly two decades ago. We have moved on a long way since then. I am still proud of it, but it is certainly not the whole story.

In that work the basis was not fields as you suggest, however, but rather, starting from our best view then of the “photon”, the “what if” of considering the electron as a (self) localised photon.  Fields are far more complex than space and time themselves and famously hard to understand. No wonder: who really understands even just space and time?

The 1997 paper even if “correct” in principle within its starting framework, immediately begs the question of “what is a photon?. A question Chandra, you and all of you have been discussing for a decade or more in this series. Of course it works: electron-positron pairs do annihilate experimentally into photons and the numbers must match up even if the theories are incapable of describing the continuous transformation properties of one into the other. The challenge is to a) realise that light and matter are fundamentally the same thing and b)  get to an over-arching theory describing both properly.

 Even if we do get the photon, for example, in terms of the fields, this will still leave the question of “what are the fields?”, as you so correctly point out. It is, perhaps, the reason that our earlier paper has “only” 39 citations (on Google scholar), as opposed to more than thousands in my most cited papers in the other two fields in which I have worked professionally. Too many loose ends. It just does not go far enough into the basis. I think that, fundamentally, as you, Chip and Viv have argued (amongst others – myself and Martin included) it will need to be understood in terms of (at least projections onto) the four dimensions of space and time. The question then comes down to us, creatures imbedded in that space and time, to try to understand the framework in which we exist. This is well-known to be problematical philosophically (Witgensteion, Godel etc..) but what can you do? We are stuck where we are and must make the best of it!

My SPIE papers try to address this by proposing (as is conventional) that the fields are derivatives of some aspect of space with respect to time (and vice versa). This is at a level more fundamental then even space and time by themselves: it leaves the question of what the derivatives in the mathematics represent in reality. These are, as expressed in the mathematics, a division of a little bit of a quantity in space by a little bit of a quantity of time (or vice-versa). Note carefully the “in” and the “of” in the last sentence. For example the electric field E = dA/dt, where A is the vector potential. So then: what is the vector potential?  Now I have (not very good) papers on the measurement of the physical effect of the vector potential (Loosdrecht first author if you want to look them up – but there are better papers out there) but what is the vector potential, really, physically? For Maxwell, it was the same physical thing as the (continuous) current, in the same way that the Electric field and Electric displacement are representations of the same thing in free space (see his textbook, whose original version predates the discovery of the electron). A better representation these days would be the 4-vector potential and the 4-current density (charge and 3-current density). Even if these are equated and understood as continuous underlying quantities the problem is then: why is charge (or A0) quantised in physical “particles” such as the electron. For me, the answer to this is sketched in the two papers to SPIE to be read together with Martin and my 1997 paper. Briefly: light is quantised because otherwise it does not propagate. Charge is then quantised because it is then (self) localised circulating light plus mass – and one can then (with proper modelling) calculate the charge. I’m not going to attempt to repeat these arguments here as they are far better explained in those three papers.

This is all very well but there remain (at least) two problems. Firstly, what does it mean physically to divide one part of a four-vector by another part of the same four-vector (as in the mathematical definition of “field”). Secondly, what is “division” in this context anyway? Every (human) monkey thinks they know what “division” is – but most monkeys do not go beyond a proper understanding of the division of mere numbers. This is what I would call “arithmetic”. One needs to understand the electr-on the prot-on and the divisi-on. All are hard!

Now Martin and wrote a paper initially entitled “On division and the algebra of reality” about a decade ago. We made two or three attempts to get it published – but it was rejected on such grounds as “there is no conceivable application in physics”. By the time this was over we had moved on to other things, though the paper has a few citations (don’t know how – it is not out there!). This may be a topic, if we do not get it anywhere else, for SPIE in two years time.

Coming back to following science. I have, like you for me, not delved as deeply into your papers as they should merit. The papers of yours I have read, however, I have thoroughly enjoyed. I think it would be good to continue this conversation and see where it gets us. For that we need some proper time. In the second half of November and the first two thirds of December I can travel. I would like to spend some of this visiting Martin for one of our sessions, and Tony Booth (who is based in Brussels). During this it would be good to arrange talks in the vicinity at some of the Dutch, Belgian and German Universities. Any chance I can spend a few days with you, or in the vicinity?

Gotta go – get ready to get to work …

Cheers for now,

John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>] on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:02 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Haha .. good analogy John. I am having a very good laugh here! May I use this one?

Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>] on behalf of John Duffield [johnduffield at btconnect.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:52 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Al:

I recommend you read On Vortex Particles<http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd> by David St John.

IMHO those electron size experiments are something like hanging out of a helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a bargepole, and then saying I can’t feel the billiard ball, it must be really small.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>]On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
Sent: 29 September 2015 17:51
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><UrlBlockedError.aspx>
Subject: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Hi John:

Only my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your espertise.  In my professional progression I have been captured by the "building block" principle: why fix the roof if the foundation is crumbling?  This has constrained me to focusing on QM and SR.  Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how far what I have learned there takes me even in HEP (now and then).

It turns out that someone posted the 97 paper Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I took a look.  Turns out I recognized it, I had read at it perhaps 10 years ago.  Then, as again now, I found the idea of building the electron out of fields (a beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my view) the way certain concepts current in QM are.  In short:  fields are defined in terms of their inferred effect on infinitesimal "test charges."  Without them, and the source charges, the current and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and so then the fields too.  Thus, one is straightaway in a circular ...   This is at least a serious lexicographical problem---minimally we need a new word, "E&B-fields" wont do.

Doesn't the term a "charged" photon (itself, un- or precharged, an inconsistently defined entity!)  gets us even deeper into a linguistic black hole?  Spin too, is another troubled notion; there is absolutely no evidence that any entity is (or has) spinning outside of a magnetic field.  Point charges can't spin but they can gyrate; so if they do, as they must (per classical E&M), in a B/H field ...

So why does it (your 97 electron model) work so well?  I don't know, and can't take the time to figure it out without cutting into my current projects, but one has to recognize the possiblity that it is the inevitable consequence of a fortuotous choice of inputs, then, by the sort of logic exploited by dimensional analysis, every thing else just follows.  Another factor perhaps in play here is a sort of dualism between particless and fields, much like that between lines and planes in projective geometry.  If sheaths of particle trajecotiries are dual to particle motion, then fields (i.e., eviserated orbit patterns) capture the motion of the true ontological primative elements: particles.  This sort of concept at least breaks out of the "circle".

Regarding scattering, the issue motivating my injection to begin with; clearly a static point charge will look like a point charge.  But, what bugs me, is that if the point target is moving uncontrollably and unknowably, but confined (basically) to a certain region,is it not possible, enevitable actually, that the scattering (statistically over many repeats) will evidence something of the "internal structure" of the uncontrolable motion, thus, for example, preventing the "resolution" of impuned internal structure.  This would seem to me to lead to much confusion or mushy talk.  Not so?  Some of the liguistic dressing to various fundamental theories in physics these days, seems to me to actually be compatible with the imagery I'm suggesting, but never quite gat around to saying it clearly and explicitly---another large part of my motivation for responding to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets.

Zitter forces: One fact, experimentally established as well as anything in physics, is that a charge is, as described by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every other charge in the universe, and, insofar as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has been so since the big bang (modulao ntis) and will remain so until the big crunch.  While many exterior charges are far away and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and there are quite a number of them!  Thus, no electron, per John Dunn, is an island.  In consequence, it zitters!  Like the rest of us.  Further, how would one "see" this scale of motion as such in a scattering experiment?  Maybe it is beinng seen, it's the foggy structure preventing resolution of the imagined internals.

Maybe we are well advised not to write off Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has little to say regarding their origin.  Obviously, breaking up a single charge via scattering-type experiments cannot eject a virtual particle.  It wouldn't acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for the effect of polarization of the remaing universe, moreover, as it all zitters to and fro.   So far, I see no objection here expcept that this notion is not kosher sociologically!  Fatal in career terms, but not logically.

Enough for the moment,  Best regards,   Al










Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr
Von: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
An: "phys at a-giese.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>" <phys at a-giese.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Cc: "Joakim Pettersson" <joakimbits at gmail.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>, "Anthony Booth" <abooth at ieee.org<UrlBlockedError.aspx>>
Betreff: Re: [General] research papers
Dear everyone especially Al, Albrecht and Richard,
I have been meaning to weigh-in for some time, but term has just started and I’m responsible for hundreds of new students, tens of PhD’s, there is only one of me and my mind is working on less than ten percent capacity.
I think we have to distinguish between what is know, experimentally, and our precious (to us) little theoretical models. Please remember everyone that theory is just theory. It is fun to play with and that is what we are all doing. The primary thing is first to understand experiment – and that is hard as there is a huge amount of mis-information in our “information” technology culture.
You are right, Al, that Martin has not carried out experiments, directly, himself, on the electron size in both high energy and at low energy, but I have.
I have many papers, published in the most prestigious journals, on precisely those topics. They HAVE had much interest (in total more than ten thousand citations). I have sat up, late at night, alone, performing experiments  both with the largest lepton microscope ever made (The EMC experiment at CERN) and with my superb (best in the world at the time) millikelvin Cryostat looking at precisely the inner structure of single electrons spread out over sizes much (orders of magnitude) larger than my experimental resolution. It is widely said, but simply not true, that “no experiment resolves the electron size”.  This comes, largely, from simple ignorance of what the experiments show. I have not only seen inside single electrons, but then used the observed properties and structure, professionally and in widely published and cited work, to design new devices. Have had them made and measured (in collaboration with others), and seen them thenwork both as expected, but also to reveal deeper mysteries again involving the electron size, its quantum spin, its inner charge distribution and so on. That work is still going on, now carried by my old colleagues and by the rest of the world. Nano – my device was the first nanosemiconductor device. Spintronics, designed the first devices used for this. Inner workings of spin , and the exclusion principle Martin and I hope to crack that soon! Fun! All welcome!
Now where Martin is coming from, and where he, personally, late at night etc … HAS done lots of professional experiments and has been widely cited is in playing the same kind of games with light that I have done with electrons. This means that, acting together, we really know what we are talking about in a wide range of physics. Especially particle scattering, quantum electron transport, and light. We may be making up the theories, but we are not making up a wide and deep understanding of experiment.
I take your point – and you are so right -that there are so many things one would like to read and understand and has not yet got round to. So much and so little time. Ore papers written per second than one can read per second. There is, however, no substitute for actually having been involved in those very experiments to actually understand what they mean.
So what I am about to say is not going to be “shooting from the hip”, but is perhaps more like having spent a couple of decades developing a very large rail gun which has just been loaded for its one-shot at intergalactic exploration …
Now I hope you will not take this badly …  it is fun to think about this but here goes
Here is what you said (making you blue):
You have not done an experiment, but (at best) a calculation based on some hypothtical input of your choise.  Maybe it's good, maybe not.
Not so: I have done the experiments! Myself. This is exactly why I started looking into the extant models decades ago, found them sadly lacking, and hence set out to devise new ones that did agree with experiment at both low and high energy. This is the whole point!

The Sun scatters as a point only those projectiles that don't get close.
True,
   So far, no scattering off elecrtons has gotten close enough to engage any internal structure, "they" say (I#ll defer to experts up-to-date).
Not so. Lots of papers on this. Some by me. See e.g. Williamson, Timmering, Harmans, Harris and Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I am an expert (up to date) on HEP as well. A more correct statement is that no high-energy scattering experiment has RESOLVED any internal structure in free electrons. If this was all you knew (and for many HEP guys it seems to be) then one might interpret this as meaning the electron was a point down to 10-18m. It is not. It cannot be. It does not have enough mass to account for its spin (even if at lightspeed) if it is that small. Work it out!

 Nevertheless, electrons are in constant motion at or near the speed of light (Zitterbewegung) and therefore at the time scales of the projectiles buzz around (zittern) in a certain amout of space, which seems to me must manifest itself as if there were spacially exteneded structure within the scattering cross-section.  Why not?
Because this is no good if one does not have the forces or the mechanism for making it “zitter”.
More importantly -experimentally- because that is not what you see. If it was just zittering in space one could see that zitter. What you see (in deep inelastic lepton scattering, for example), is that there is no size scale for lepton scattering. That is, that no structure is resolved right down to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the same thing as an electron being a point. That is why one says (if one knows a bit about what one is talking about) that it is “point-like” and not “point” scattering. These qualifiers ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not a point. Charged photon- not a photon. Localised photon – not a photon. Vice-Admiral- not an admiral. Vice-president- more a reason for not shooting the president!
That structure is not resolved does NOT mean that the electron is point.  This is widely accepted as fact, but just represents a (far too widespread) superficial level of understanding. Any inverse-square, spherically symettric force-field has this property (eg spherical planets if you do not actually hit them). The real problem is to understand how it can appear spherically symettric and inverse square in scattering while ACTUALLY being much much larger than this. This is exactly what I started out working on in 1980 and have been plugging away at ever since. Exactly that! You need to explain all of experiment: that is what this is all about.
Not to defend Albrecht's model as he describes it, but many folks (say Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for example) model elemtary particles in terms of the partiicle itself interacting with its induced virtual image (denoted by Peter as the "rest of the universe").   This "inducement" is a kind of polarization effect.  Every charge repells all other like charges and attracts all other unlike charges resulting in what can be modeled as a virtual charge of the opposite gender superimposed on itself in the static approximation.  But, because the real situation is fluid, the virtual charge's motion is delayed as caused by finite light speed, so that the two chase each other. Etc. Looks something like Albrecht's pairs.
Yes I know. This is the same kind of maths as “image charges” used all the time in modelling the solid state. These are all models. All models have features. We need to confront them with experiment. Problem with the pairs is you don’t see any pairs. If one of the pair has zero mass-energy it is not there at all. If there was a pair, bound to each other with some forces, then one would see something similar to what one sees in proton scattering (see below), and you do not. One then has to explain why and how this process occurs, every time. You always (and only) see one thing for electrons, muons. You see a single object for the electron, and an internal structure for the proton. This is what your theory has to deal with. Really. Properly. In detail. At all energies.

I too havn't read your 97 paper yet, but I bet it's unlikely that you all took such consideration into account.
You could not know this, but his could not be more wrong. We did. You did not specify the bet. Lets make it a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a beer! If you have not yet read the paper by the time we next meet I think you should buy all the beers! Deal?
The whole point of the paper my reason for leaving high energy physics at all, the seven years of work Martin and I put into it to that point, was exactly to resolve this mystery – on the basis of an “electron as a localised photon”. My subsequent work has been to try to develop a proper field theory to deal with the problems inherent I the old model (unknown forces) and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc lump of mass) (amongst others). This is the point of the new theory of light and matter:an attempt to sort all that out. You should read it too! Do that and I will buy you a beer!
Now Richard, while I am disagreeing with everyone I am going to disagree with you too! You keep saying that the electron apparent size scales with gamma – and you keep attributing me with agreeing with you (and Martin and Viv and Chip). Let me say this once and for all: I DO NOT agree with this.  Now Viv and Chip must speak for themselves, but I’m pretty sure Martin would (largely – though not completely) agree me here.  I have said this many times to you – though perhaps not specifically enough.  It is not quite wrong – but far too simple. It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree that it changes apparent size- yes, but not with gamma- no. How it actually scales was discussed in the 1997 paper, and the mathematics of this is explained (for example) in my “Light” paper at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½( x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst other things, in Martin’s “Light is Heavy” paper. Really the apparent size scales BOTH linearly AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x then). It is the average of these that gives gamma. This is how relativity actually works. You do not put things in, you get things out. You need to look at this and understand how gamma is related. Best thing is to go through the maths yourself, then you will see.
The bottom line is that the reason one does not resolve the electron size is that, in a collision, this size scales like light. It gets smaller with increasing energy. Linearly. Likewise the scattering exchange photon scales like light. Linearly. The ratio for head on collisions remains constant – but the exchange photon is always about an order of magnitude bigger that the electron (localised photon). This is WHY it can be big (10^-13 m)  and yet appear small. I said this in my talk, but I know how hard it is to take everything in.
One does not see internal structure because of this effect – and the fact that the electron is a SINGLE object. Not composite – like a proton (and Albrecht’s model).
Now what would one see with lepton scatting on protons? I have dozens of papers on this (and thousands of citations to those papers) – so this is not shooting from the hip. Let me explain as briefly and simply as I can. Lock and load …
At low energies (expresses as a length much less than 10^-15 m or so), one sees point-like scattering from, what looks like, a spherically symettric charge distribution. Ok there are differences between positive projectiles (which never overlap) and negative, but broad brush this is so. There is then a transitional stage where one sees proton structure – some interesting resonances and an effective “size” of the proton (though recently this has been shown to be (spectactularly interestingly) different for electron and muon scattering! (This means (obviously) that the electron and muon have a different effective size on that scale). At much higher energies one begins to see (almost) that characteristic point-like scattering again, from some hard bits in the proton. Rutherford atom all over again. These inner parts have been called “partons”. Initially, this was the basis –incorrect in my view – of making the association of quarks with partons. Problem nowadays is that the three valence quarks carry almost none of the energy-momentum of the proton - - keeps getting less and less as the energies go up. I think this whole quark-parton thing is largely bullshit. Experimentally!
Now Albrecht you make some good points. You are absolutely right to quote the experiments on the relativity of time with clocks and with muons. You are also right that one is not much better off with double loops (or any other kinds of loops) than with two little hard balls. This is a problem for any model of the electron as a loop in space (Viv, John M, Chip, John D – this is why the electron cannot be a little spatial loop – it is not consistent with scattering experiments!). Now this is a problem in space-space but not in more complex spaces as Martin and I have argued (see SPIE electron paper for up to date description of this – from my perspective). It is more proper to say the loops are in “momentum space” though this is not quite correct either. They are in the space(s) they are in – all nine degrees of freedom (dimensions if you like) of them. None of the nine are “space”. For me, they are not little loops in space. In space they are spherical. You are not correct – as the DESY director said and as I said in the “panel” discussion- that one would not “see” this. One would. Only if one of the balls were not there ( I like your get out of saying that!), would one observe what one observes. In my view, however, if it is not there it is not there. I’m open to persuasion if you can give me a mechanism though!
Regards, John W.










_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

________________________________
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 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/20151011/0833969f/attachment.htm>