[General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Fri Jun 17 00:04:17 PDT 2016


Yeah Tony, you are right of course,

Exactly the same, except that it is completely different!

3D, handed, tileable, multiply orientable, properly signed, different symettry .. not so very different then!

Pretty dumb of me. 

In my defense it was quite early in the morning!

I was thinking only 2-dimensionally in terms of a specific (though pretty cool!) wavefunction and 16D in terms of infinite differentiability for resonant, coherent self-sustaining systems! Both of which still need to work, of course!

Regards, John.
________________________________________
From: 4dwave at gmail.com [4dwave at gmail.com] on behalf of Anthony Booth [abooth at ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 8:38 PM
To: John Williamson
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Mark, Martin van der; Stephen Leary; Phil Butler; Solomon Freer
Subject: Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

To John Williamson      16Jun2016

        Cracking open the d'Alembertian

Hello John.  Thanks for keeping me in the circulation.

In your comments to Grahame Blackwell of 16Jun16 (today) you wrote:
  There is, further, no asymmetry between the spatial and the temporal
  (except for the sign in the metric, the 3D nature and the handedness
  of course) - so I do not see why you think there is. The relativistic
  wave-function scales properly in both space and time, with only the
  variation of the single factor R.

I am not sure whether my thoughts are directly applicable to your
debate with Grahame, but I am prompted to challenge your above
assertion over a couple of issues that add up to a substantial
concern.

This concern relates generally to the 1,3 dimensional d'Alembertian
differential operator (i.e. the Minkowski relativistic wave operator).
As you know, I propose the exploration of pure wave modelling, so this
is of concern to me.  The two issues are:
  1  The operator accommodates symmetrical first, second and third
order recursion of causal closures in what we call the spatial
dimensions but not in the so called time dimension, and cannot
causally so combine all four dimensions.
  2  A triality prevails under symmetrical rotations over linear
eigenfunctions on the 3-space of the spatial dimensions, but excludes
the temporal.

These two points challenge your statement as being an absolute fact.
Further, if we extend the domain of models considered to include
stochastic scalar fields then much more becomes apparent.  But your
group, by using materio-physical entities (e.g. having mass) as
elements of every model, seems to me to be missing any such
possibilities because they have already excluded them.

These wave operator properties create prospects of emergent
correlation dynamics displaying original nonlinear phenomena (from the
algebraically merely linear model!) so long as the ambient scalar
complex wave field has certain degrees of negative entropy measure in
its frequency spectrum.  Such nonlinear processes may then provide
support for persistent stable self delimiting stochastic solitons in
the correlation function space of that endemic scalar field.

Such is the nature of a stochastic lower level wave model that appears
to me to be an exciting prospect at present.  I am currently mired in
trying to detail that prospect, through conceptual and analytical
development and by example cases of emergent physics models.  Can I
not infect other(s) to concur in this conviction or at least in the
excitement, to help succeed, or else find where it really does not
work?

As you know the development of the upper model sitting on top of this
lower stochastic system is in a fair state of definition.  For that
part dealing with bound electrons and their phenomena, but ultimately
for development to all leptons see http://4dwave.org/pdf/ripple-.pdf

Best wishes to all.

         Tony Booth

On 16 June 2016 at 13:20, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Grahame,
>
> Good to see you on another forum. Welcome indeed!
>
> Have seen much of (and enjoyed) your work in the past, I think you are spot
> on in many respects, wrong in others, and completely crazy elsewhere (but in
> a good way!). You should fit right in!
>
>
>
> It is worth noting, for your information, that certain folk, Martin van der
> Mark and Stephen Leary amongst them, have signed themselves off this group -
> so you will need to include them separately if you want to reach them.
> Others who perhaps should be in the group, such as Phil Butler, never were
> (though Niels Gresnigt is).
>
>
>
> I note that you and Viv have had a discussion on the nature of "mass". There
> has been a lot of this in the past on this forum - mostly arguments about
> the meanings of words. It has been this, in part, that has put some folk off
> to the extent that they have jumped out. Looking at your discussion there it
> seems to me mostly semantics as well. You both agree real photons are
> rest-mass less. You both agree they carry energy-momentum. Pretty much the
> only thing you disagree on is what the meaning of “mass” should be. I agree!
> I disagree too! Professional high energy physicists avoid this by talking
> about “the 4-momentum transfer squared”. This is always positive for real
> photons (and equal to the square of E/c in the centre of momentum frame). It
> may be positive (repulsive) or negative (attractive) for virtual (as opposed
> to real) photons.
>
> On relativity I was going to ask you if you had seen my paper with the
> derivation of the Einstein Gamma from a localised photon model, but on
> trying to catch up a bit (I have been snowed under with exams, marking and
> the associated crap that comes with it for a couple of months) I came across
> your email of apr25, where I see you have. Interesting comments there but
> the derivation does not depend only on the localised photon model - it goes
> deeper. The underlying effect, and the reason for the appearance (and hence
> derivation) of special relativity, depends on the reciprocal relation of
> "to" and "fro". The maths is the same as that leading to equation 21, but
> the underlying symmetry is the linear nature of energy and the linear nature
> of "field". There is, further, no asymmetry between the spatial and the
> temporal (except for the sign in the metric, the 3D nature and the
> handedness of course) - so I do not see why you think there is. The
> relativistic wave-function scales properly in both space and time, with only
> the variation of the single factor R.  Sounds as though there is an
> interesting discussion to be had there at some point.
>
>
> I agree that we should be deriving relativity, not starting with it as an
> axiom. Einstein himself was far more flexible and deeper on this than the
> frozen version in current standard textbooks would suggest. Indeed he would
> have been horrified to be set up as an AUTHORITY! Especially when the
> "authorised" version corresponds just a small subset of his thinking.
>
>
>
> I think I understand the “why” of relativity (although this could be an
> illusion!) and have tried to explain this several times and from several
> perspectives - but it is hard. I am not the only one though, Carver Meade
> certainly gets it, Einstein did (surprise!) wheller and FEynman did, Basil
> Hiley does (I've seen a similar use of his to mine). Not sure what the
> proepr provenance is - most likely Einstein himself. Proper relativity has
> little or nothing to do with the “speed of light” per se. Light has a
> (local) speed. Call it “1”. Everything else scales from this. THe fact that
> it is measured everywhere and in every frame to have the same value is more
> a property of the measurement equipment scaling in the same way as that
> measured, as I have said before. There is a form between space and time –
> the metric where the 1D part (call it time) has the opposite sign to the 3D
> part (call it space). The sign difference is necessary to allow relativistic
> waves and relativistic locality. No sign difference no waves, no us. The
> absolute sign of space, by the way, is not neutral, as is widely thought. It
> must be negative to retain the consistencies of (Lorentz) rotations of
> rotations, as first pointed out by Butler. Phil Butler  and others (Martin
> and me as well) produced a paper on this long ago – which was never
> published.  Ho hum. The sign of the 3D part has implications for the
> intrinsic handedness of the universe (as should be obvious). There is
> evidence that we have got it wrong (Hamilton, Maxwell and 3D computer gamers
> use a left-handed system). To get a full understanding one needs to look at
> all velocities symmetrically about the speed of light (down to zero and up
> to “infinity”). This is bound up with the “interaction with the absorber”
> stuff that I thought of talking about last August – though Carver Meade had
> done a good job in his keynote talk a couple of years before.
>
>
>
> Speaking of relativity in its standard form and your request to have any
> errors pointed out - my pleasure. You are, if not wrong, at least not quite
> right yourself in certain respects on this (not your fault - many are! It
> comes from the (poor) explanation of what is going on in standard
> textbooks). Viv has a saying "If I am wrong I want to be the first to know.
> That goes for me too - and I know it goes for you as well so I will try to
> help!
>
> Here is one example (between the ****'s) from your "tail" with Viv and
> Richard:
>
> ***********
>
> My other point relating to Vivian's paper is in respect of what appears to
> me to be an assumption for which there is no evidence: namely that, just
> because a static particle is formed from exactly two circuits per wavelength
> of its formative photon, a moving particle will likewise consist of exactly
> a double-loop.
>
>
>
> I see what you mean here. Indeed there is a problem with defining start and
> end “points” in a moving frame. This is, however, the point. One should not
> wish to do this, as it has little meaning. Particle consistency in terms of
> a resonant- self-sustaining oscillation, requires a resonant, smooth,
> harmonic description in all possible frames, not just the rest frame. If a
> particle is a double-loop in one frame, it must be a double-loop in all
> frames – even if apparent (projected!) space and time must “bend” to
> accommodate this then so be it. This must be secondary, not primary. This
> does not mean, for the particle, that space and time are actually
> contracting or dilating – just that it seems that way from another frame.
> These elementary objects are the primary ruler-clocks with which we measure
> every aspect of space and time.
>
>
>
>  This appears in the four lines of algebra leading up to equation 7, which
> itself defines a reduced diameter for a particle on the move.
>
>
>
> I agree that Viv is just putting this in – however if you want to describe
> this consistently in terms of lengths and times then something like this
> must happen. My own view is that space-space is the wrong space to view this
> in and one should use bi-vector space here and then make a projection (a
> divsison). To do this one has to understand how to do inversions  properly
> in a relativistic algebra (not as trivial as it sounds – as a moments
> thought will reveal). Martin and I have been working on this for some time
> and we are in the course of writing a Martin-John paper about it.
>
>
>
> It seems to be an attempt to conform with precepts of SR - but leads to a
> conclusion that is itself at variance with SR, namely a change in dimension
> orthogonal to direction of motion.
>
>
>
> Hmm, this is and is not so. If the particle would be a rigid body (made of
> what?) that did conform to the simple precepts of SR as a given – you would
> be right. However, given that it is made of light you are incorrect. Field
> transforms ONLY perpendicular to a boost and NOT parallel to it as do vector
> quantities. It is a VERY BIG MISTAKE to try to apply simple (gamma!)
> relativity to non-vector quantities. That is, an analysis of relativity at a
> deeper level DOES conform, at least in some respects, to what Viv is doing
> here. Viv knows it must scale laterally – physically, but it is not quite
> kosher the way he has done introduced it.
>
>
>
> By the way the momentum density, like the field is a bi-vector object.
> Integral energy-momentum then scales similarly, but not in precisely the
> same way as a simple 4-vector. This has to do with the proper properties of
> inversion (and hence projection). Martin and I are busy writing a paper on
> this at the moment. The moral is that seeing the (double looped) rotation as
> a simple rigid body rotation in normal space is too simple and analyses on
> this basis should not be taken too seriously, whether they “agree” with
> simple SR or “contradict” it.
>
>
>
> There seems to be a suggestion that this only affects the particle, not the
> wider structure, but it's not apparent why that should be so: would not a
> change in electron diameter have an impact on electromagnetic molecular
> bonding - if not, why not?
>
>
>
> Molecular sizes have little to do with the free electron size, but are
> orders of magnitude larger (of the order of their de Broglie, rather than
> Compton wavelength). Also the velocities of orbitals are anyway low enough
> that the effect is small. This is not to say they are not there – and
> relativistic corrections are important – they do affect the molecular
> bonding – just not a lot.  The size of the electron (or anything else) is
> unaffected by how we view it.
>
>
>
> I see strong reasons why radius of photon path would NOT change with speed
> of particle.
>
>
>
> What? Even a classical rotor would squash to an apparent ellipse. Obviously
> it does not change in the frame of the particle. Is this what you mean?
>
>
>
> Look, lengths (apparently) do scale with frame. Experimentally. Photons
> scale with energy. High energy photons are smaller than low energy ones. E =
> h nu =  hf/lambda. If you want to project this to (your) space – you will
> see an apparent shrinkage with increasing energy. This is the point. Not
> that it has shrunk in its space but that RELATIVE to you it looks small. It
> is not that the radius of the photon path has changed – the photon does not
> have a linear radius. It may rotate, but it does not corkscrew. It is that
> the characteristic length – if that is what you measure – has changed. That
> intrinsic “length” is not necessarily a length in vector metres but a length
> in bi-vector metres or, more properly scalar metres (radius of curvature and
> curvature are properly expressed as ratios – especially at lightspeed). One
> needs to project these to get a vector length. Project it, properly, onto
> your space. Projected, for a localised photon, one half scales as R, the
> other as 1/R (as in Martin and my 1997 paper and as in the discussion
> leading up to eq 21 in my paper discussed earlier). As an observer you only
> “see” the reduced half – the other still recedes from you at lightspeed.
>
>
>
>
> ***********
>
> Hmm I feel as though I’m repeating myself in much of the above yet again …
> I’m afraid that email discussions do not really make the kind of progress I
> would like. It would be far better if those of us with an interest in the
> electron as a localised photon could get together and have a proper workshop
> on it. That would progress things a very great deal more rapidly. I wonder
> if there is any chance of that this summer? There are quite a few of us in
> the locality (Britain, Holland, Belgium) more in the States, but scattered.
> Provided we avoid dates around those of the Open Golf (14th to 17th July),
> there is plenty and varied accommodation in my home town of Troon.  Anyone
> fancy an August Workshop on particles as localised electro-magnetism in one
> of the most beautiful countries on Earth?
>
>
>
> Gotta go … still dealing with the aftermath of exams.
>
>
>
> Have another thing I’ve been working on for Michael Mercury on astrophysical
> tests of free pivot which I may post to the group as well later.
>
>
>
> Regards, John.
>
> ________________________________
> From: General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:52 PM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>
> PS
>
> Sincere apologies to all for sending that last email with such a long 'tail'
> on it.
> That's not my normal practice.  I regret I was distracted as I was preparing
> to send that one and neglected to clip it as I usually do.
>
> Best regards,
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dr Grahame Blackwell
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [General] Matter comprised of light-speed energy
>
> Hi Chip et al,
> [Thanks, Prof Chandra, ... etc


More information about the General mailing list