<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504"><span>John</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6646">I am the undesignated reviewer that is usually useful and occasionally entertaining. As such, I'm not here to provide a rigorous review or a deep vetting. I simply want to clear out a few obvious things and point out what topics might have been left out but where various disciplines might ask questions. </span>Shear coincidence that I respond quickly. I'm not waiting around for the musing du jour. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">When I review papers, I realize from experience that one can go through 20 rounds with multiple referees. So I'm not advocating for any particular viewpoint. We certainly have enough of them. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"> I'm looking for clear and concise explanations, and the elimination of potential obstacles. I'm also looking for scope with an eye towards raising questions that various technical and scientific audiences might raise. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">As a sign of an educated author who goes the extra mile IMHO the word "it", an impersonal pronoun, should be severely limited in any physics paper. One should write to explain ideas and concepts clearly removing "it" even if sentences need to be rewritten and combined. In order to maintain or enhance clarity, sacrificing conciseness is often a necessity. It is writing for yourself; no "it" is writing for the reader and the reviewer. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">My respect is for time of the reader or reviewer who may be reading the paper after a long day. I don't like to backup and figure out what the "it" or any other personal or impersonal pronoun is referencing. I'm fairly sure those who are tired wish that the author would permit them to read straight through instead of tracking all manner of "it" and other uses of pronouns, impersonal or not.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">Your mileage may vary. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">Enjoy,</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6504" dir="ltr"><span><br></span></div><br> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6655"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6654"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6653"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6652"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6651"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6663"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> John Williamson <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson@hotmail.com>; Janet Williamson <janetconstructions@bigpond.com>; Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin@hotmail.com>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, July 19, 2015 7:52 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> RE: [General] Weyl Fermions<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6726"><br><div id="yiv8845080912"><style type="text/css"></style><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6730">
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6729"><style>
#yiv8845080912 #yiv8845080912 --
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {}
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {}
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {panose-1:2 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 4;}
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {font-family:Monaco;panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
#yiv8845080912
#yiv8845080912 p.yiv8845080912MsoNormal, #yiv8845080912 li.yiv8845080912MsoNormal, #yiv8845080912 div.yiv8845080912MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}
#yiv8845080912 .yiv8845080912MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria;}
_filtered #yiv8845080912 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
#yiv8845080912 div.yiv8845080912WordSection1
{}
#yiv8845080912
</style>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6728"><span style="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6727">Wow, David, you are a very useful
guy. Quick too ..</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6731"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6733"><span style="" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6732">I should ask – are you the designated
reviewer for my article – or are you just being generally useful as usual?</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_6734"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_7040"><span style="">John</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1437366504026_7041"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Ok, I read the second page which
basically details the approach outlined on the first. I only have some general thoughts.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">The last paragraph is </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">> </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Monaco;">In
the new theory space and time - the defining components of the physical vacuum, are primary and are always present. Space and time condition any root-energy into different forms, manifesting as mass (scalar), charge and current (vector), fields (areas), spin
(volumes) and a spin root (a 4-dimensional volume).The theory allows, however, for the possibility that the root-energy at certain places may go to zero - an empty vacuum. For all practical purposes, of course, ``free" space is always full of the photons that
paint our world - even if they are only those of the 3K background radiation. The answer then, for me, to the question posed in the title is ``all three". With ``something else", here being the proper nature of space and time - the underlying form of the ``vacuum"
present at all localities.</span><span style=""></span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">A few thoughts...</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Maybe the term "root-energy" needs
to be characterized a bit more clearly. If root-energy is simply a meta term for energy density that is a WYSIWYG massless particle or displacement, and need not be continuous thereby being reduced to the true "indivisible atom" nature of the universe, then
I would be concerned about being too simple and curious as to what assumptions or clarifications I'm missing necessary to develop and link to known theory and experiments, and perhaps other models.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Nope- the point is that such things
as field are already (and always were) a kind of (literally) square-root energy density. To get the energy in them you must first square them, then multiply by a constant (one half epsilon zero for the electric field) then integrate over the volume containing
them. Fields are not energies but root-energies. Literally. Have you read the “light” paper. This stuff is better explained there.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Also the wave-function (the so called
probability density) is also such a root-energy function. You must first square it then multiply it by a constant (just Joules here) then integrate over the appropriate space to get the energy. This is also a root-energy. Many of the basic quantities we physicists
think we are familiar with (including the charge as described below) are really not energy but root-energy concepts.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Obviously I am not making myself
sufficiently clear!</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">The zero vacuum might go negative.
Vacuum does not mean void, and from a physics standpoint, void is not clearly defined as to whether it's the artificial emptying of all energy and matter leaving a spacetime framework with no matter, just a volume to be filled in time by external sources of
energy. Alternatively, our universe may be naturally expanding into the void naturally. We may need to develop telescopes that can measure the void between universes. </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">I know the standpoint but do not
agree with it. I also understand the distinction between vacuum and void. I could say a lot more about this, but it would take another article. One can take the position that the vacuum may support negative masses, but these have never been observed. I’m excluding
explicitly anything that has never been observed. Standard QED does take this position, by the way. I do not.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">The popularity of zero point vacuum
or polarizable vacuum suggests for vacuums and measurement the current technology limits needs attention. One might add low temperature, and perhaps negative temperature views as well. Can these views support or vet the current position?</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Negative temperature needs material
with the potential to extract further energy to exist. It cannot exist on its own. Even intergalactic space is ( at 3K) pretty damn warm on the (millikelvin) scale I have been used to doing experiments. So called “negative temperatures” are cool, but cannot
exist in isolation. Energy is always conserved.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">Is there a "quanta" level? The proposed
position does not answer this question. From a particle standpoint, I like the position as long as this position not only allow for electrons and photons, but a quanta that might define the photon.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">I think the usual use of the word
“quantum” is just a vehicle in which to sweep everything one does not understand about a process. The articles posted are supposed to derive the origin of the quantisation of light (and hence angular momentum quantisation), from relativity, and, subsequently
the quantisation of charge from that of the quantisition of angular momentum. Perhaps I am fooling myself, but that is the claim and that is the program I have been following for the last three decades. </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">For any proposed model, even the
simplest vetting requires the source of charge to be properly addressed. </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">The “source” of charge is in the
new equations. I should realise by now that equations do not talk to everyone and I should have said this in words as well.
<span style=""> </span>In the new theory there is no single source of charge. There are (at least) four. The charge is the time component of the v-vot. In words, the time component of the 4-current (the charge, the 0-vot) can arise from the
time derivative of the p-vot, or the space derivative of the b-vot (the f-vot, the field). Obviously I should have said this explicitly! Expect some clarification in the revised article!</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style=""> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal" style="background:white;"><span style="">David</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue;">Regards, John W.</span></div>
<div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yiv8845080912yqt2928406868" id="yiv8845080912yqt50306"><div style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;font-size:16px;">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="yiv8845080912divRpF252630" style="direction:ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8@yahoo.com]<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 19, 2015 9:35 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Kyran Williamson; Janet Williamson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br clear="none">
</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4338"><span>John</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4339"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4341"><span id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4340">Ok, I read the second page which basically details the approach outlined on the first. I only have some general thoughts.</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">The last paragraph is </div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">> <span class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5274" style="font-family:Monaco;font-size:12px;">In the new theory space and time - the defining components of the physical vacuum, are primary and are always
present. Space and time condition any root-energy into different forms, manifesting as mass (scalar), charge and current (vector), fields (areas), spin (volumes) and a spin root (a 4-dimensional volume).The theory allows, however, for the possibility that
the root-energy at certain places may go to zero - an empty vacuum. For all practical purposes, of course, ``free" space is always full of the photons that paint our world - even if they are only those of the 3K background radiation. The answer then, for me,
to the question posed in the title is ``all three". With ``something else", here being the proper nature of space and time - the underlying form of the ``vacuum" present at all localities.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">A few thoughts...</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><span class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4493">Maybe the term "root-energy" needs to be characterized a bit more clearly. If root-energy is simply a meta term for energy density that is a WYSIWYG
massless particle or displacement, and need not be continuous thereby being reduced to the true "indivisible atom" nature of the universe, then I would be concerned about being too simple and curious as to what assumptions or clarifications I'm missing necessary
to develop and link to known theory and experiments, and perhaps other models.</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5689"><span class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5691"><br clear="none" class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5693">
</span></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5689"><span class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5865">
</span><div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">The zero vacuum might go negative. Vacuum does not mean void, and from a physics standpoint, void is not clearly defined as to whether it's the artificial emptying of all energy and matter leaving
a spacetime framework with no matter, just a volume to be filled in time by external sources of energy. Alternatively, our universe may be naturally expanding into the void naturally. We may need to develop telescopes that can measure the void between universes. </div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none" class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5855">
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">The popularity of zero point vacuum or polarizable vacuum suggests for vacuums and measurement the current technology limits needs attention. One might add low temperature, and perhaps negative temperature
views as well. Can these views support or vet the current position?</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342"><br clear="none" class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5859">
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">Is there a "quanta" level? The proposed position does not answer this question. From a particle standpoint, I like the position as long as this position not only allow for electrons and photons, but
a quanta that might define the photon. </div>
<div class="yiv8845080912" dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5862"><br clear="none" class="yiv8845080912" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5864">
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4342">For any proposed model, even the simplest vetting requires the source of charge to be properly addressed. </div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5657"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5658"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5659">David</div>
<blockquote id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4289" style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;margin-top:5px;padding-left:5px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4288" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4287" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4286">
<hr id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_5555" size="1">
<font id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4285" face="Arial" size="2"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> John Williamson <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">To:</span></b> David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</span></b> Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson@hotmail.com>; Janet Williamson <janetconstructions@bigpond.com>; Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin@hotmail.com>;
Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr> <br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, July 19, 2015 9:57 AM<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br clear="none">
</font></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912y_msg_container" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4348"><br clear="none">
<div id="yiv8845080912"><style type="text/css">
#yiv8845080912 #yiv8845080912
</style>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4347">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4346" style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;">
Hello David,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Good to hear from you as always. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I have attached the LaTex source code for those of you who may want to put it into your favourite engine. Let me know if this helps -- otherwise I will compile the thing again and send you page 2!<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I'll go blue ....<br clear="none">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4350" style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:#000000;font-size:16px;">
<hr id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4349" tabindex="-1">
<div id="yiv8845080912divRpF715629" style="direction:ltr;"><font id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4351" face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of
David Mathes [davidmathes8@yahoo.com]<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 19, 2015 8:56 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Kyran Williamson; Janet Williamson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br clear="none">
</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4353">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437334660122_4352" style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span>John</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437">I'm a bit tired...so bear with me. <span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437">Thank you for reducing the "it" count to 9 per page, at least on the front page. I was not able to view the other pages if any. Send more.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">That many. Oh dear!<br clear="none">
</font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17453">Paragraph</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17499">P1. <i id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17519">Speculations</i> are guesses.
<i id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17559">Theories</i> are more in the hypothesis categories. One could argue educated guesses but they are really based on assumptions quite often whether the assumptions are known or not.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
T<font color="0000FF">here is a sort of heirarchy of speculation-hypothesis-theory, with blurred boundaries. For Faraday, however, all theories were speculations. I'm with Faraday!<br clear="none">
</font></span></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17532">Mathematical physics is an invaluable tool. Yes, Nature has the ultimate vote on any theory and punishes the inadequate and incomplete with anecdotal
exceptions that just do not fit. That is, a theory is not a law. The theory may work but not quite in all cases. Theories fall short.
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">For now, yes. If Hilbert's sixth is ever solved, however - no. That will precisely parallel nature just and no more - in every respect. B<font color="0000FF">y</font> definition, Hence my conclusion that it may never be solved</font><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><span id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17544">So do experiments. Experiments are contextually based often in a context of implicit assumptions. Explaining the assumptions would in many cases
require another paper or book even.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
T<font color="0000FF">his is very true, and often not realised - even by specialists. Many experiments even start by assuming a theoretical framework with a yes-no answer. Many - like (in my view most of the Weyl fermion guys by the way) - look for something
sexy beyond current physics. These things often have far more prosaic explanations. Further, experiment is often taken by the majority (who do not understand it fully) to mean something other than it really means. A classic example is that the (democratic)
majority of physicists think that the electron has been measured to be a point particle down to 10^-18 metres. This is not the case. It is a single object, with an inverse square law for its field down to that length-scale - yes. Point-no, Spherical if stationary
- yes. Point-like - yes. Many people think my paper on coherent electron focusing shows quantum effects in quantum transport (about a thousand citations). Wrong. It is equally well explained by a bit of surface roughness scattering - as Stephen and I showed
later. T<font color="0000FF">h</font>is is partly why I have been looking for a theory for decades with so very few starting assumptions - now down to just space time and root-energy. No more.</font><br clear="none">
</span></div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17437"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17501">P2. Vetting permits constraining as well as sorting. A vetting process must be careful to consider more than one theory. And the foundation is only as strong as one can explicitly explain assumptions.
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">I would say explicitly FOUND assumptions. Founded on experiment that is.</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">P3. Allowable narcissi as a precursor to P4<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">Thanks.</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">P4. Space, time and energy density leads one to use 5D theories. In particular, Kaluza-Klein, Wyel and Williams (phat photon)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">Yep .. and that it w<font color="0000FF">hat</font> it is ... in that sense of the word dimension. In fact these "dimensions", though, are not all the same sort of beast. The spatial triple, yes, very similar. But time and energy - no.
In fact one has three extensive dimensions (plus and minus allowed for space) one positive definite (energy) (though that may be debated) and one uncertain (time). On can try to allow one and only one direction to time .. the negative direction being then
our interpretation, not natures way. This pretty much works. Also Kaluza-Klein theories are not good enough, apparently, in that they all require a division algebra as a fundament. The Lorentz algebra ids not a division algebra. Cue lots of very very clever
guys wasting their time.</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">Word order should be - Maxwell, Dirac, and Schrodinger
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">Thank you.</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">You give three choices, so remove the word "either"<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">No. Neither- nor-nor is allowed. So is Either-or-or.</font> <font color="0000FF">
Or even Either-or-or-or and so on.</font> <font color="0000FF">It is only not common usage.</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">P5 An interesting exercise to challenge assumptions is a Monte Carlo (combinatorial) analysis of space, time and energy. Can one have space and energy without time? Can one have time and energy
but no space? Can one explain CP and PT violations?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">No, no, yes. One first needs to understand properly what space is - and it is far more complicated than just 3D. The second one is more possible. Need to think about that. It may be possible though to have p-vot and energy but no space.
For CPT one need to understand the "why" of why C and P and T are related in the first place. This comes from the underlying proper geometry of space-time. The mirror space is close to the unmirrored space, but not quite so. Left handed and right handed differ
in their effect on rotations of rotations. Hence the violations.<br clear="none">
</font></div>
<font color="0000FF"></font>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">That's all I can read...send more.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">Ok</font><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">Best</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502">David<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<font color="0000FF">Cheers, John W.</font>
<div class="yiv8845080912qtdSeparateBR"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd22471"><br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd04938">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17502"><br clear="none">
</div>
<blockquote id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17459" style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;margin-top:5px;padding-left:5px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17458" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17457" style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17456">
<hr id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17504" size="1">
<font id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17505" face="Arial" size="2"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> John Williamson <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">To:</span></b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; David Mathes <davidmathes8@yahoo.com>
<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</span></b> Kyran Williamson <kyran_williamson@hotmail.com>; Janet Williamson <janetconstructions@bigpond.com>; Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Anthony Booth <abooth@ieee.org>; Manohar . <manohar_berlin@hotmail.com>;
Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr> <br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, July 18, 2015 10:17 AM<br clear="none">
<b><span style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [General] Weyl Fermions<br clear="none">
</font></div>
<div class="yiv8845080912y_msg_container" id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17506">
<br clear="none">
<div id="yiv8845080912"><style type="text/css">
#yiv8845080912 #yiv8845080912 --
-- p
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
#yiv8845080912 body
{direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}
#yiv8845080912 p
{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}
#yiv8845080912
#yiv8845080912 BODY {direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;}#yiv8845080912 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17508">
<div id="yiv8845080912yui_3_16_0_1_1437285384687_17507" style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;">
Dear all,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Please find attached the "position" document I sent to SPIE this morning.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Regards, John W.<br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">
davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br clear="none">
<a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">
Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none">
</a><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd45899"></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd86786"></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd07304"></div>
</div>
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd94048"></div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
<div class="yiv8845080912yqt4189469554" id="yiv8845080912yqtfd65756">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" target="_blank" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br clear="none">
<a href="<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br clear="none">
Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none">
</a><br clear="none">
</div>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div></div>
</div>
</div></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div></body></html>