<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear John W,<br><br></div>time for a couple comments below:<br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:21 AM, John Williamson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US">Dear Andrew and David,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Thank you very much for your paper Andrew and posts David. <span>
</span>The reading of them has been a rare treat in the early hours of a Wednesday morning.
<span> </span>I usually tell my second year students to be wary of Wikipedia as it starts to become unreliable (representing “common knowledge” as it does) at their level. The posts, however, were funny and apposite in turn and definitely
not tbs (too bloody serious). It was a good overview of the state of the game in many areas and I learnt one or two things from them. Thanks for picking them up! E-p annihilation is not quite “through the looking glass” (but almost).</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US">Andrew, it was wonderful to see that someone else has worried about the dynamics of e-p annihilation. Beautiful article – well argued. Did it ever get published? This kind of consideration should be central to our meeting in San Diego as
it addresses directly the transition from light to matter and vice versa.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I never did publish it and, since I am a Cold Fusion author, anything I submit to arXiv is automatically rejected or scrutinized very closely for rejection of any non-standard physics. I have not had time yet to update it and try a European journal.<br><br>I will be presenting a version of it to the upcoming Nature of Light conf. (see abstract). Any suggestions or comments before I start putting it together are welcome.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">I think that it is, indeed, no co-incidence that one ends up finding the classical radius is important. There is a relationship of precisely alpha squared between the Bohr radius and the classical radius, with the Compton wavelength coming
in at the logarithmic centre (radius within a factor of 2 pi). Apart from the crucial questions asked in the article itself, the conversation between you both raises many important issues – too many to cover in a short email – but I will try to comment on
and make some progress on some of them.</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
</font><span lang="EN-US"><font size="1">Firstly (even though this is outside the theme of these posts a little), quarks, gluons and the quark charge. It is common knowledge that the quark charge is</font> <font size="1">fractional – but this is just the simplest model (Proton charge = 2/3+2/3 – 1/3).
An alternative is to use Han-Nambu quarks which carry integral charge, but whose charge differs for different colour (gluon) charges, (Proton charge = +1 +1 -1). Actual measurements of the quark charge (one of the subjects of my PhD thesis) remain inconclusive.
In fact direct measurements of the very existence of quarks is inconclusive to say the least (as energy increases the percentage of the apparent energy carried by the valence quarks is tending towards zero – Martin may say something about this in SD). There
are extant (and unexplained) experiments which flatly contradict the quark-parton model (O’Fallon et al PRL 1977!).
</font></span></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Forget about quarks and gluons- we have to do better. We need a theory that treats both leptons and photons as integral elements of an underlying paradigm. Naturally I’m hoping that my new theory of electromagnetism will allow the calculation
of the detailed transition from leptons to photons within a single unified theory, but that remains to be seen. Hoping people such as Chip can help here!</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Simple models of the proton as a bag of quarks yield proton radii in the right ballpark. John M, for example, has an estimate in his longer paper where he assumes equipartition of energy to three valence quarks in a bag which comes in at
the right order. There are claims of doing much better than this using ZPE (zero point energy) calculations– especially in explaining the recent “proton size puzzle”. The precision claimed here is impressive. See, for example…</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://resonance.is/the-proton-radius-prediction-and-gravitational-control/" target="_blank">http://resonance.is/the-proton-radius-prediction-and-gravitational-control/</a></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US">I have tended to dismiss the ZPE stuff in the past as just being a simple-minded interpretation of Copenhagen-level quantum mechanics – but I could be very wrong here. This remains to be seen. It anyway has little impact on the electron-photon
debate as fields are (as Chandra, for example, is arguing) very linear for practical energies. See, e.g. …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/</a></span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You mentioned being "<span lang="EN-US">worried about the dynamics o</span>f electrons..." I became a believer in stochastic electrodynamics when I thought about how an s-orbital electron radiates (see my subsequent paper on virtual vs real photons from the 2011 conference, attached). Any physicist who believes the line that such a source can be represented by a simple harmonic oscillator should turn in his badge. Unfortunately, Feynman taught just that.<br><br></div><div>I believe that the dark energy of space is simply the non-photonic Maxwellian radiation. It provides the impedance of space. These random EM fluctuations feed, and are fed from, all of the atomic electrons (and perhaps any other electrons) in the universe, past, present, and future. QM claims the existence of Quantum Foam, but provides no physical basis for it (but it does claim that electron and positron pairs of any energies are constantly 'popping' in and out for a quick nip). If the real basis is classical, it is not likely to ever get published.<br><br></div><div>Andrew<br>___________________________<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:10pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Even so, for me this is not the main issue. It is the question of charge quantization in elementary particles per-se, and the underlying reasons for the existence of the eightfold-way (quark) symmetry at all in hadrons.
</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">For me the reason for the quantisation of charge is precisely that only existing (charged) particles can emit or absorb photons. The quantization arises, then, because particles exist in a state of (thermodynamic) equilibrium with the other
particles around them. A higher charge simply emits faster. In a hydrogen atom (or positronium) the vast majority of interactions are between the resonant bound pair – making such things beautifully, smoothly, neutral. Free charges may have, however, some
effective spread in charge – and this may prove one experimental test of the new theory.</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">For me the quark symmetry is just geometric, as explained in my talk at Cybcom 2008 which Nick has posted. Quarks do not exist independently because they are not complete particles. A complete, resonant, harmonic path is required to give
a particle. Such considerations generate the mass spectrum of particles as well, with the muon coming in at 6 cubed and the tauon at 15 cubed the mass of the electron. My old (1981!) model also gives simple relations between baryon masses (but it is a bit
of a silly model). Have not really pursued this in decades, but it may be time to look into this again.</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Coming back to e-p annihilation, what is cancelled, and the field pattern. For me, the fields of the electron and positron are not cancelled, but simply transform smoothly into the di-photon field pattern. The first person to show me how
to do this was my old friend Ariane Mandray. She did her PhD in Grenoble, but is no longer active in physics, which is a shame. I think my visual imagination is somewhat above the population average, but she is way beyond me: she has the cleverest visual imagination
I have ever encountered. I’ll copy her in on this. Take two of Martin and my roly-poly leptons, one electron with field inwards and one positron with field outwards. Represent them as two donuts and lay them both on a flat table. Set the internal spins to
have The SAME handedness but opposite (instantaneous) spins. As the two field patterns merge, they converge to two linear, corkscrew-like configurations – the proto di-photon pair. Ariane did this, lying in front of a fire, in her head, within a few minutes,
powered only by a couple of (small) glasses of wine. Wow!</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<font size="1"><span lang="EN-US">Coming back to sizes and so forth. The electron size is not of the order of a tenth of a picometre as in the roly-poly photon model. It is a lot smaller (though not, for me, Plank-scale small). This is because it only has itself to oscillate
about. The effective size in free space is close to the classical electron radius – modulo a force-balance as David was arguing (anything obeying the Maxwell equations satisfies a general force-balance equation. No need for extra stresses). The radius of curvature
of the internal photon path is of the order of a tenth of a picometre, but that is not the same thing as one measures as this radius is not in space-space, but in scalar–field space. This will probably make little sense to most at the moment . It needs the
paper I’m thinking of writing when I stop writing this email. The oscillation may be viewed as being of the field part about the rest-mass part. The rest-mass part is - just as Andrew was arguing in his paper – the bit that is annihilated to field in e-p annihilation.
It is, for the simplest model within the new theory, a quarter of the total mass-energy. I would love someone to model this process in the new theory. Chip?</span></font></p><font size="1">
</font><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="1">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US">Cheers, </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0.1pt 0cm 0.0001pt">
<span lang="EN-US">John W.</span><br></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>