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

[Chip Akins]

Hi Tony

Just wanted to let you know that not all of us in the group are confined in our models to the particulate way of thinking.  My thoughts are that an elementary lepton model should indeed be a stochastic wave solution. Much like the thoughts of John Williamson and Martin van der Mark in many respects. John Duffield and others in the group apparently also have such a view.

I also believe that the temporal "dimension" must be treated differently from the special dimensions. Meaning I feel time is distinct and different from space.

Chip Akins

-----Original Message-----
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Booth
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:39 PM
To: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Phil Butler <phil.butler at canterbury.ac.nz>; Stephen Leary <sleary at vavi.co.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>; Solomon Freer <slf at unsw.edu.au>
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.natureoflightandp
> articles.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
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at chipakins at gmail.com <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>