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

John Williamson John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
Fri Jun 17 19:11:21 PDT 2016


Dear Alex,

Thank you for your response. 

I clearly have a very great deal to learn here if I am to make any useful contribution to the field, but my time and energy is extremely limited at the moment. My apologies!

I think you have an intriguing and valid starting point for the development of your theory. I know it is considered acceptable, even de rigeur, nowadays to start from a point of “symmetry breaking”. Clearly a theory is “broken” if it does not already contain a term explaining an observed effect. Merely saying it is broken does not, however, in engineering terms fix it! Even saying where and how it is broken does not. It does not, by itself, yield an analytic functional form useful for experimental testing or engineering applications.
 
For that one would have to get to the root of the problem, develop a theory of “bare gravity”, or whatever you may want to call it. Show how gravity as it is observed is derived from this (including the relative weakness of the observed forces) from this AND explain the symmetry breaking observed in the first place.
 
I would appreciate you pointing out to me any of the seminal papers on this and especially any work on the functional form of the underlying theory of gravity proposed.

Regards, John.

________________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Burinskii A.Ya. [bur at ibrae.ac.ru]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 9:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark,    Martin van der; Solomon Freer
Subject: [General] HA:  HA:  PS:  Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Dear John,
You say
``but I think the connection with gravitation is weak''.

I can only argue that contrary to the usual  effective radius of action of gravity r ~  M, in the Kerr  solution,
which is exact solution to Einstein gravity,  the Kerr singular ring is extended to the Compton zone  r ~ \hbar / M.
So, the strong force is extended in a string-like form very far from the point-like electron.
Qualitatively, this closed string forms a gravitational waveguide which keeps the photon in the Compton zone
(it was suggested in 1974 foe electron as ``Microgeon with Spin'').

Regards,
Alex


________________________________________
От: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Отправлено: 17 июня 2016 г. 9:53
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark, Martin van der; Solomon Freer
Тема: Re: [General] HA:  PS:  Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Dear Alex,

Just read your paper.

I agree whole heartedly that the spin-mass ratio is  very high for the electron, and think this is an intriguing, and valid, starting point for developing a theory. It reminds me a little of what Carver Mead did with his "Collective electrodynamics" in starting from the spin, though he did not make any further connection with gravitation per se. I simply do not agree that this is related to Einstein GR.  Why? Clearly, if one increases the force and looks at rapidly rotating objects one will get interesting solutions whatever the source of the force - and you do. We have had a go sticking in the Casimir force in the past and with lots of other candidate interactions. What you are doing looks fun and good luck to you, but I think the connection with gravitation is weak, if you will pardon the pun.

For me I do not want to start from observing that the forces must be there, to confine the spin. I'm interested in deriving what they are.  Also I'm more interest3d in deriving gravitation from electromagnetism than the other way round, though I accept that that is a valid field of research.

Don't even get me started on string theory!

Regards, John.
________________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Burinskii A.Ya. [bur at ibrae.ac.ru]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 7:05 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark,    Martin van der; Solomon Freer
Subject: [General] HA:  PS:  Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Dear All,



Let me object to the words by John...



"Having said this, for all practical purposes, the corrections to SR of GR are negligibly small and theories attempting to use this to confine the electron, such as geometrodynamics do not work because the resultant forces are just far too small."



Smallness  of GR is indeed a myth -- the principal conceptual mistake of the superstring theory,

and source of its failure.   It takes not into account the great  spin/mass ratio of the particles,

which is about 10^22  in the dimensionless units.  As shows the Kerr solution, action of the spin in GR is extremely big, and in fact, the spin of electron so large that breaks topology of the  space

around the particle in the Compton zone. Just THIS effect keeps the light inside electron!!!  So, there is no need to go to Plank scale and have extra dimensions. Look at more details in the attached essay.



Alex







________________________________
От: John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
Отправлено: 17 июня 2016 г. 5:56
Кому: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Копия: Phil Butler; Anthony Booth; Stephen Leary; Mark, Martin van der; Solomon Freer
Тема: Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

 Hello John, Richard, Viv and Grahame and everyone.

Sorry, many of you will get this twice, as I forgot to include the more general mailing list.

Reg too, if you are out there.

Richard and Viv are so right, you too Grahame (in a different way) and  you too John (in yet a different way). Being right however, does not make something else "wrong". A theory is something which, as a theorist, one steps into and out of like a suit of clothes. It is appropriate within its realm of validity. It is a childs model of the universe, valid in some respects, and helpful to us in aiding thinking. Einstein was a great thinker, who thought many thoughts, and any specific quote of his cannot be taken to circumscribe that thinking or be definitive of the truth. I agree: Einstein would be horrified at us holding him up as an authority. So would any proper scientist!

We have had a discussion, at length, earlier on this forum. You can download the stuff and there are hundreds of pages from me alone on this topic – so I can not and will not reproduce that all here. Some disconnected jottings follow, however.

Now Graham, I have not been able to look at your web-pages yet. They use Java, which I do not allow to run on this machine. Do you have anything on the same stuff in plainer form?

I am with you on this Grahame: the base postulates of special relativity are not completely correct in all possible scenarios (for example in the presence of gravitational fields as John mentions). Having said this, for all practical purposes, the corrections to SR of GR are negligibly small and theories attempting to use this to confine the electron, such as geometrodynamics do not work because the resultant forces are just far too small. I am also aware that many of the experiments purported to “prove” SR may be interpreted as arising from different effects such as variations in the stuff of which the measurement equipment is made. There are also experiments to support the existence of an “absolute” frame. One of the major exponents of this, Reg Cahill, gave an interesting talk at SPIE but has not been involved in discussions further on this forum. None of this matters. Even if SR is wrong in detail, it is very very right in many respects in that it provides, over a wider range of phenomena in my view, a better description than anything else of equal simplicity and beauty. Now, for my theory, I do not start with SR, but with a deeper principle I call absolute relativity (AR!). This comes about, for me, from trying to understand what the elementary process we call multiplication and division actually MEAN when we apply them to such things as “space” and “time”. That is what does “division” parallel in the underlying natural universe when we divide “space” by “time” and get “velocity”. Now this underlying process, whatever it is, is well-described in an engineering sense, by SR. On the other hand, I can derive the base relations of SR from a deeper set of principles. That is what I am after: the basis on which the natural world resides, and from which the phenomena of the natural world (all of them) can be described. I am just curious as to how everything works. For me, I try to understand this by rigorously defining “multiplication” and “division”, maintaining tokens representing space and time and such things as areas and volumes in space-time through my new theory. The result seems to be – if one does this, one derives continuous electromagnetism more elegantly than in standard textbooks, derives forces capable of turning a localized photon and forming the double loop, derive the basis of quantum electrodynamics capable and also derive a theory which precisely parallels SR in one limit. I think this is quite cool.

For me, as an engineer, what is most important is what works. What is important for me as a theorist is finding as complete a description of as much of the natural universe as is possible, based on as few and as natural a set of starting parameters as possible.  I keep putting on taking off my various theoretical “hats”, looking at it this way and that, and trying to puzzle out what makes most sense, and what leads to the most complete description. For me, as for you, and as for many of us here, at present that seems best viewed through the prism of light, its underlying basis and light inter-actions. For me the basis of this is deeper than field, or even than space and time, but has to do with the root of “space” and “time” and “energy”. Theory is not a chocolate box where one can pick what one likes and forget the rest – lots of it impacts elsewhere. New theory must maintain and underpin the old where this works well. Old practical theory (by “practical” I mean stuff that allows one to engineer new stuff, not airy-fairy stuff pulled out of your nose and further useful for nothing- like string theory) is not usually “wrong”, it is just not quite fully “right” in every respect.
Now you ask: is there any support for SR out there? The answers is: yes lots! There are loads of supporters! Although not familiar in everyday life to most, as a professional at CERN one uses it to design the machines which accelerate particles (it works!), to describe the increase of energy with velocity, limited by lightspeed, (it works!), to understand the apparent (many hundreds of times) longer lifetimes particles exhibit if they are moving at close to lightspeed (it works!). To describe the limiting of particles to lightspeed, whatever the added energy, (it works). To describe, equally, things accelerated hitting objects virtually at rest with respect to the distant stars, and the same objects hitting each other in a colliding beam machine (I have worked on both sorts of experiments – it works, believe me) It works, works and works again. Now I understand that competing theories work in many respects, but I have yet to see one which does them all (the killer for many is getting the observed time-dilation right). Now for me it is fine to discard or deepen the conceptual basis. That is what I am trying to do. It is NOT fine, however, to throw any theory away unless you replace it with something equally good or better – and that precisely parallels what one observes in reality, that allows one to engineer a particle accelerator, and that allows one to understand the measured properties of particles as observed in experiment.

SR may be “wrong” in detail at the outer margins, but it is very, very right in practice. Whatever replaces it had better reproduce it where it counts – or it will be contradicted not just by “experiment” but by actual standard engineering practice.

Regards - John.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at bur at ibrae.ac.ru
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/bur%40ibrae.ac.ru?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 John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/john.williamson%40glasgow.ac.uk?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>


More information about the General mailing list