<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello Andrew,<br>
<br>
I like your approach and am looking forwards to hearing about in more detail in August. I'll go blue.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF831657"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [mules333@gmail.com]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, June 16, 2015 10:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mary Fletcher<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Pivot in the new theory of light and matter<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Dear John W. and all,<br>
<br>
</div>
I am using John D's truncated version for this note. <br>
<br>
I am out of touch for a few weeks as I try to get 3 papers out before their July 1st deadline and our 3 SPIE papers out before their July 15h deadline. However, I did see the pivot note and that got my attention.
<br>
<br>
<font color="333399">Know the feeling!</font><br>
<br>
I am perhaps addressing that (or a similar) point in our talk at the conference (<span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:black">A. Meulenberg, W. R. Hudgins, and R. F. Penland, “The photon: EM fields,
</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:black" lang="EN-GB">electrical potentials,</span><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:black"> and AC charge,” )</span>.
<br>
<br>
<font color="000080">Yes.</font><br>
<br>
People consider currents (dq/dt) to be spatial displacement of charge. In photons (in particular the standing waves of interference zones), I think of this as a temporal displacement of charge from negative to positive and back (AC in time).<br>
<br>
<font color="333399">Much better! I think (and tell my students!) that one should consider three current elements 1/ as above, 2/ displacement current (e.g time rate of change of electric field - this is an element of the "displacement current"). 3/ Quantum
current, this is an integral over (psi grad psi star - Psi star grad psi), where psi is the QM wave-function and grad is the usual (3) gradient. The four-differential over the e-m field captures the latter two automatically - hence its power.</font><br>
<br>
This gives a pivot from 3-D to the 4th dimension and allows the forming electron positron pair to be spatially co-located.
<br>
<font color="333399"><br>
This is certainly part of the story. Kudos! Not quite my definition of pivot though - though I see what you mean.</font><br>
<br>
They do not become leptons (with DC mass and charge) until they are separated in space (by > ~100 fm).
<br>
<br>
<font color="000080">Exactly!</font><br>
<br>
I can think of energy in space as a twisted rubber band. At some point, under further twisting, it 'buckles' and starts forming knots (self-sustaining vortices?). This bifurcation point, a bending of space into time, would be the 'pivot' that initiates the
formation of charge and mass (a rectification?). <br>
<br>
<font color="000080">Yes, but we need another word for this than<font color="000080"> "pivot" right away
</font>or <font color="000080">I, for one,</font> will start getting confused. Twist? Stress? Also the rubber band analogy is not so good as big is small and small is large. Small size - big energy. Perhaps light-winding. This needs to incorporate the concept
that light winds up as it gets smaller within the restrictions of a lightspeed "rotation horizon". I think of unit lines and products of these to give unit planes if perpendicular and a unit point if parallel. I think of the rest-mass energy as the magnitude
of the unit point<font color="000080">. <font color="000080">To give it a name- the magnitude of the pivot.</font></font></font>
<font color="003366">If large enough, one begins to form particles. Conversely a particle such as the electron contains a certain quantity of pivot, corresponding to either a quarter or a half of its rest mass (depending on the internal model - will perhaps
talk about this in my SPIE paper.</font><br>
<br>
I hope to have time (in 4 weeks) to study and understand the different views of the group and to help integrate them into a 'defensible' whole before the meeting.<br>
<br>
<font color="000080">Me too!</font><br>
<br>
</div>
Andrew<br>
<font color="003366"><br>
John W.</font><br>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:24 PM, John Duffield <span dir="ltr">
<<a href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com" target="_blank">johnduffield@btconnect.com</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 lang="EN-GB">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">John:<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">Some interesting stuff there. IMHO your pivot-electric effect is just displacement current: light is alternating displacement current, space waves, and where it waves it’s curved. So
light moving through light follows a curved path. <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">I’d be interested in meeting somewhere closer than San Diego. Oxford is good for me. London too. And did somebody mention Llandudno a while back or has that been and gone? And of course,
if anybody fancies a few days in Poole, we have two spare bedrooms. <u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">John D
<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)">PS: I’ve pruned this email. They were getting bigger and bigger.
<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt; color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium; border-style:solid none none; padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0.0001pt"><b><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt" lang="EN-US"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield" target="_blank">general-bounces+johnduffield</a>=<a href="mailto:btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 16 June 2015 19:49<br>
<b>To:</b> David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Pivot in the new theory of light and matter<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Dear David (and everyone) ..</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Please find attached two preprints, one on the new theory of light and matter presented last year in Marseille at FFP14, the other an update of the draft
paper I posted for comment earlier on photon quantisation from the underlying relativistic nature of space and time.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">I had intended to get round to replying to you, to Richard and to comment on the (very beautiful) video posts of John M’s stuff . I may not get round to all
of what I would like to do though.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">David, I had missed your first post an comments on the “pivot” in the snow of emails and the rush to finish this round of exams. I am now on annual leave
– and hence have a bit of time to do a bit of proper work. Hihi … very nice indeed. I love your creativity and getting some insight into your thinking on what the pivot might be. Some of the ideas you came up with sounded similar to my initial thinking on
how things turned, in my old theory back in the eighties when I was at CERN.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Some of your subsequent emails referred to what you had said earlier and, out of context, were a bit confusing for me. Likewise, what I am saying will be,
without reference to the framework of the new theory and the new differential equations therein, pretty incomprehensible.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">But no – that is not what I was talking about at all. I was writing, specifically, the concept of “pivot” in the context of the new, extended, theory of classical
electromagnetism I am in the process of developing, aspects of which were presented last year at FFP14 (preprint attached). The pivot concept has also been talked about, in the context of forces at MENDEL2012 or before at a series of lectures here in Glasgow,
at a Maxwell Society lecture in London in 2009 and at the Cybernetics conference there. The earlier work was in the context of a (more complicated) nonlinear theory Martin and I have been working on for some time. We are still trying to progress that as well,
though with mundane work commitments we have had very little time. My concept of pivot in the earlier work was anyway (very slightly) different, as our thinking has moved on a lot since then, so it is better to stick to the work in the current, linear, theory.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Like me, you have not had time to follow everything and, in particular, you have not yet found time to take on board all the papers I have posted. This will
have made a good few of the comments I have made pretty incomprehensible. I have attached the relevant preprints (one updated) for convenience if anyone wants to know more about what I am talking about and/or make any further comments.
</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">I agree with you that we need to become more rigorous in our discussion. I agree wholeheartedly that we all need to make more effort in defining what we are
talking about, otherwise we will get mired in tiresome discussions of the meaning of terms. I’m afraid this means, practically, that we reference what we are talking about where possible, to the proper theory and to the proper mathematics. For example, when
Richard talks about the equation governing his “charged photon” as being the Schrodinger equation – we then know that the rigorous behavior of charged photon fluid is, for him, the same as the probability density squared in Schroedinger quantum mechanics.
One can then discuss this without the words getting in the way. We can then waste less time wondering just what each other are talking about. As one of the worst offenders in the confusion stakes this may sound a bit like the pot calling the kettle black-
but I am trying now and will try to do better in future! </span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">The new theory, aspects of which are covered in the attached preprints, is in conventional terms a set of eight, coupled linear differential equations. They
encompass the Maxwell equations. They are better written, however, as a single linear differential equations over space and time. In this sense, the new theory has as a basis the proper relativistic properties of space and time. Built in.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Written as a single equation, the new equation looks similar (and is similar) to the Dirac equation. It is more comprehensive, however, and considers mass,
charge, current electric field, magnetic field and three other (unfamiliar to most) kinds of quantities – one corresponding to an intrinsic angular momentum density, another to an directed volume (we hall it a hedgehog as it is either inward or outward directed
in 3d space) and the other to a kind of four dimensional hedgehog (which may also be inward or outward directed and acts a bit like the complex scalar i). I know this is hard guys – but understanding just how the universe works was never going to by easy!</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">The new theory, rather than needing to posit spinors, derives them. Like the Dirac equation it has at the simplest level just four solutions, corresponding
to double-covering field-pivot vortices in 4-momentum space. One pair is negatively charged, the other positive. In each pair there is an intrinsic spin which can be either leftwards or rightwards. From the perspective of the new theory, where Dirac initially
went wrong was in his assignment of the intrinsic nature of mass in his (too large) algebra.
</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">The fact that the solutions are vortices in momentum space and not space-space means one has to look at a projection to see what they look like in space.
This is why they can be both spherical and toroidal. Sphere and torus are both projections of higher dimensional spheres.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">In the simplest extension of the new theory over and above Maxwell, my concept of the “pivot” acts as a seventh dynamical “field” component. This is the
“P” term in the differential equations in the two papers attached. </span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Unfortunately, it is the paper yet to come though, on the photon and electron, which has not been drafted yet, which will explain the pivot aspect in more
detail. Though, in some senses, I should be working on doing that rather than writing this email – this process is helping to clarify my thoughts on explaining myself. This is a job for the next few weeks.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">The draft photon quantization paper (attached) now has a note on the Phat photons David M picked up, which I have now referenced (thanks to David). There
has been some revision, to explain points of confusion arising in the discussion with this group.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">In the new theory, the pivot, like the electric and magnetic fields, is smooth and continuous and can take any value. This value is usually zero in free space
since it is strongly scavenged by existing material particles – which absorb it as low-energy heat. In contrast to the proper nature of the electric and magnetic fields (tensor or bi-vector components) the pivot is a Lorentz invariant scalar transforming
like a rest-mass. It is next to impossible to produce and measure free pivot (if it exists at all) as it would rapidly be sucked into anything that looks like a pre-existing particle (such as any measurement equipment). If it exists anywhere in the universe
it would need to be far from existing matter. It could then constitute a candidate for dark matter – which may itself be worth a paper suggesting this possibility (I’m happy to co-author one such with any of you with expertise in cosmology or astrophysics).</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">So – how does the new theory introduce forces strong enough to constrain light? Briefly, the Poynting vector usually is S = E X B, representing a kind of
field momentum density … within the new theory this gets an extra term such that Sp = E X B +EP, where P is this new Pivot term (which is always zero for free space). It is this product of electric field and pivot which is related to the confinement force
(force density components arise form its 4-differential). Now the difference between this rest mass density in the new theory and in that of Dirac, for example, is that here the Pivot is dynamical – in the same way that E and B satisfy a differential equation
with respect to both space and time, so too does the pivot (you need to look at the equations in the paper). The rate of change of pivot is related to the charge. This makes (QED) sense as it constitutes mass-energy exchange. Clearly, from the equation its
effect is to introduce curvature into the momentum density flow, as it is in the direction of the electric field, which is perpendicular to the Poynting vector. In the presence of pivot the direction of momentum transport curves smoothly, which is why I called
it the pivot. If you get enough pivot, the idea is that the field may propagate round and round in circles in an electro-pivot-magnetic vortex. An elementary (rest) massive particle. The pivot-electric effect does not stop the magneto-electric flow, merely
turns (pivots) it. Enough pivot is not a very great deal – the same order of magnitude as the magnetic field (with which it shares the same physical units) will suffice. It is then the interaction between the electric field and the pivot (as in the equation
above) that provides a confinement mechanism for something that is no longer light (though related), but now an electron. There are a further set of particles with tighter twists. These have the mass spectrum of the higher leptons (the muon and tauon).</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">The differential of the momentum is, of course, a confining force. The radius of curvature sets a size scale. Though the curvature is in a peculiar (4-momentum)
space this may be expressed in metres and is lcom/ 4pi. The thing is self-confined partly because the pivot is two differential orders away from the field, and hence is 180 degrees out of phase. More pivot means more mass, a tighter curve and hence a smaller
object (as is observed). Similar objects all have the same mass, if charged, because they can exchange mass-energy with one another through photon exchange and hence equilibrate. It is all very very beautiful!</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">Just for information this note (and the preprints) is intended to be forwarded to other people in a few other groups who may be interested and with whom I
am currently corresponding (mostly people copied in earlier emails. including Tony Booth, Basil Hiley, Roger Penrose, Michael Wright and Alex Afriat but also some folk in another study group Martin and I belong to).
</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black" lang="EN-US">It strikes me that Andrew is right that we, as a group, may need more interaction after San Diego, both within our group and with an extended group including
the people mentioned above and others each of you may know. Anyone interested in organizing a conference or workshop in Europe perhaps? Anyone prepared to help with trying to find funding for travel and so on? I would do it, but I have so very little time
now and no talent for organizing anything (even myself!). I need to conserve as much energy and time as possible into scraping a little time together to develop and promote the new theory. We could hold it here in Scotland in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or in Oxford
or Cambridge, Amsterdam, Brno or Prague perhaps? Some of us are anyway trying to organize a European group to further the new physics. The European members of the group may wish to get involved with this for the next round of funding. Some of you may also
have industrial contacts willing to help sponsor such an effort in return for participation and interaction with the group. All are welcome! My experience in the past is if we can get a few people on board it can rapidly snowball. Networking at the conference
can help – but it is always better to prepare the ground beforehand.</span><span style="color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>