<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi John:<br>
<br>
Business before pleasure: regarding a visit here, that is of course
possible, although I don't now know when we might be spending time
in Karlsruhe where our son lives with family. And, Weimar is
inconveniently far from Brussels, etc. (ca. 5-6 hours on the
Autobahn or train (waiting time included) etc. to be undertaken by
busy folks with more on their plate than socializing. <br>
<br>
Professionally useful opportunities in this area that I'm aware of
include Klaus Gürlebeck here in Weimar---deep into the math
extending Clifford Algebras, etc. and the Uni in Jena.
Unfortunately, after the incorporation of that uni into the West
German system, they have become hyper conscious of their
vulnerability to association with "quacks" who question orthodoxy,
etc. I.e., my contacts there a null in spite of the convenience (ca.
20 KM). Moreover, I'm unaware that any high energy work goes on
there, mostly optics and related areas (Zeitz' optics for Soviet spy
satellites were made in Jena 30 years ago). However, Leipzig is not
far, if you have any interest in what might be there. <br>
<br>
In response to points made below: that fields are defined in terms
of their effect on nonexistent entities, to my mind, doubles the
reason to regard them as fictitious. <br>
<br>
Energy and momentum cannot be directly measured. In stead x(t) (in
one form or another) is measured and E and m calculated therefrom.
Write-ups notwithstanding, sometimes the calculation is done by the
measuring device manufacturer and the units on the dial are in terms
of E or whatever, but when considered seriously, it always reduces
to x(t).<br>
<br>
"Photons" are (parts of) quantized fields. Again, this doubles the
troubles of using them for the primative elements of a theory.
Might still be workable, but at a minimum new words and ideas are
needed to avoid a castle in the sky for which dimensional still
unfolds without inconsistency. Your 98 paper was a fun and clear
read, but still I couldn't jump on that band wagon for the reasons I
mentioned.<br>
<br>
Regarding other possible collaboration, about all I can imagine that
I could contribute to your line of work might be some philosophical
stuff in introductions. There is one issue, however, where you
might be in position to really help me with a project I'm preparing
for. It is this: all the text book presentations of the muon decay
proof of time dilation seem to consider that all the pi's to muons
are generated at high altitude. However, ray cosmic rays, H+, He+
and higher reach the surface of the earth too. Thus, some survive
into lower altitudes where they also would initiate the
pi->muon->electron cascade exploited in the experiments. That
is, there is good reason to expect evidence of muons all the way to
the ground utterly without time dilation. I'm ginning up to do a
calculation based on reasonable assumptions about the nuclear
chemistry in the atmosphere (where I would profit from knowledgeable
friends) BTW, I regard both Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and time
dilation as perspective effects: no actual modification of
extensions or intervals actually occurs, rather the projection onto
an observers "eyes" is modified just as in classical optics. <br>
<br>
So, in the mean time, best regards, Al<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30.09.2015 06:48, John Williamson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7DC02B7BFEAA614DA666120C8A0260C9024C67AF@CMS08-01.campus.gla.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline}
span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
-->
</style>
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">
<!--
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color:
#000000;font-size: 10pt;">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1593833729 1073750107 16 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Hello Al,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Thanks for your
well-considered reply.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This picks up on an
unfinished conversation in San Diego, in the early hours in
the bar at Hotel Solamar, between you and me and a few
others on the ontological basis of reality. You were saying
some very interesting things, but we had distraction from
others, ran out of time and we were both, by then, a little
the worse for wear. My feeling is that you went pretty deep
– but not yet quite deep enough. You and me both! Perhaps we
can help one another.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I take your point about
the hypothetical “charged test particle” beloved of text
books. Unfortunately, no such particle exists with which to
probe stuff. The lightest stable particle we have is the
electron, the smallest the proton. Muons are useful in that
they are far smaller than the electron, long lived enough to
be useful and far simpler than the proton. It was fun
playing with 200 GeV muons in my youth – but that does not
give all the answers either as one remains a monkey –
essentially banging the rocks together and going OOOH! at
whatever comes out.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I like your argument
about the ontological basis being of (as I understood it
late that night<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>– though forgive me if this is far too simple)
trajectories in space through time and I think one can,
indeed, get a long way thinking from this basis.
Unfortunately, in experiment, it is usually energy and
momentum that one measures directly and not (the conjugate
variables) space and time. One knows the energy (and
momentum) of a photon fairly precisely, but have
correspondingly far less information about its time (and
position). Yo – that photon hit me – it was blue and it came
from that direction. Likewise, in a high energy scattering
experiment, one gets the energy and momentum of all the
particles pretty precisely, that the interaction was
point-like down to 10-18m, but one (even with the best
photographic emulsions) only gets the position to within a
micron or so. This is 36 orders of magnitude of uncertainty
in a volume!. Not good for fixing a trajectory!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Coming back to theory.
I could not agree more with - “why fix the roof if the
foundation is crumbling?”. This is exactly the point.
Indeed, the discussion in our 1997 paper does not go nearly
far enough. This work is, however, nearly two decades ago.
We have moved on a long way since then. I am still proud of
it, but it is certainly not the whole story. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">In that work the basis
was not fields as you suggest, however, but rather, starting
from our best view then of the “photon”, the “what if” of
considering the electron as a (self) localised photon.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Fields are far more
complex than space and time themselves and famously hard to
understand. No wonder: who really understands even just
space and time?
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">The 1997 paper even if
“correct” in principle within its starting framework,
immediately begs the question of “what is a photon?. A
question Chandra, you and all of you have been discussing
for a decade or more in this series. Of course it works:
electron-positron pairs do annihilate experimentally into
photons and the numbers must match up even if the theories
are incapable of describing the continuous transformation
properties of one into the other. The challenge is to a)
realise that light and matter are fundamentally the same
thing and b)<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>get to an over-arching theory describing both
properly.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Even if we do get the
photon, for example, in terms of the fields, this will still
leave the question of “what are the fields?”, as you so
correctly point out. It is, perhaps, the reason that our
earlier paper has “only” 39 citations (on Google scholar),
as opposed to more than thousands in my most cited papers in
the other two fields in which I have worked professionally.
Too many loose ends. It just does not go far enough into the
basis. I think that, fundamentally, as you, Chip and Viv
have argued (amongst others – myself and Martin included) it
will need to be understood in terms of (at least projections
onto) the four dimensions of space and time. The question
then comes down to us, creatures imbedded in that space and
time, to try to understand the framework in which we exist.
This is well-known to be problematical philosophically
(Witgensteion, Godel etc..) but what can you do? We are
stuck where we are and must make the best of it!
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">My<a
moz-do-not-send="true" name="_GoBack"></a> SPIE papers try
to address this by proposing (as is conventional) that the
fields are derivatives of some aspect of space with respect
to time (and vice versa). This is at a level more
fundamental then even space and time by themselves: it
leaves the question of what the derivatives in the
mathematics represent in reality. These are, as expressed in
the mathematics, a division of a little bit of a quantity in
space by a little bit of a quantity of time (or vice-versa).
Note carefully the “in” and the “of” in the last sentence.
For example the electric field E = dA/dt, where A is the
vector potential. So then: what is the vector potential?<span
style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>Now I have (not very good) papers on the measurement
of the physical effect of the vector potential (Loosdrecht
first author if you want to look them up – but there are
better papers out there) but what is the vector potential,
really, physically? For Maxwell, it was the same physical
thing as the (continuous) current, in the same way that the
Electric field and Electric displacement are representations
of the same thing in free space (see his textbook, whose
original version predates the discovery of the electron). A
better representation these days would be the 4-vector
potential and the 4-current density (charge and 3-current
density). Even if these are equated and understood as
continuous underlying quantities the problem is then: why is
charge (or A0) quantised in physical “particles” such as the
electron. For me, the answer to this is sketched in the two
papers to SPIE to be read together with Martin and my 1997
paper. Briefly: light is quantised because otherwise it does
not propagate. Charge is then quantised because it is then
(self) localised circulating light plus mass – and one can
then (with proper modelling) calculate the charge. I’m not
going to attempt to repeat these arguments here as they are
far better explained in those three papers.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">This is all very well
but there remain (at least) two problems. Firstly, what does
it mean physically to divide one part of a four-vector by
another part of the same four-vector (as in the mathematical
definition of “field”). Secondly, what is “division” in this
context anyway? Every (human) monkey thinks they know what
“division” is – but most monkeys do not go beyond a proper
understanding of the division of mere numbers. This is what
I would call “arithmetic”. One needs to understand the
electr-on the prot-on and the divisi-on. All are hard!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Now Martin and wrote a
paper initially entitled “On division and the algebra of
reality” about a decade ago. We made two or three attempts
to get it published – but it was rejected on such grounds as
“there is no conceivable application in physics”. By the
time this was over we had moved on to other things, though
the paper has a few citations (don’t know how – it is not
out there!). This may be a topic, if we do not get it
anywhere else, for SPIE in two years time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Coming back to
following science. I have, like you for me, not delved as
deeply into your papers as they should merit. The papers of
yours I have read, however, I have thoroughly enjoyed. I
think it would be good to continue this conversation and see
where it gets us. For that we need some proper time. In the
second half of November and the first two thirds of December
I can travel. I would like to spend some of this visiting
Martin for one of our sessions, and Tony Booth (who is based
in Brussels). During this it would be good to arrange talks
in the vicinity at some of the Dutch, Belgian and German
Universities. Any chance I can spend a few days with you, or
in the vicinity?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Gotta go – get ready to
get to work …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Cheers for now,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Verdana;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times
New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New
Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">John W.</span></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000;
font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF657324"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Williamson
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 30, 2015 2:02 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000; font-size:10pt">Haha .. good analogy John.
I am having a very good laugh here! May I use this one?<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000;
font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF509836" style="direction:ltr"><font
color="#000000" face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b>
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of John Duffield
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:johnduffield@btconnect.com">johnduffield@btconnect.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 29, 2015 7:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">Al:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">I recommend you read
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/68152826/On-Vortex-Particles-Fiasco-Press-Journal-of-Swarm-Scholarship#scribd"
target="_blank">
On Vortex Particles</a> by David St John. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">IMHO those electron size
experiments are something like hanging out of a
helicopter, probing a whirlpool with a
bargepole, and then saying
<i>I can’t feel the billiard ball, it must be
really small. </i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">Regards</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D">John D</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 29 September 2015 17:51<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] nature of light
particles & theories</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
John:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Only
my "non expertise" in HEP mathches your
espertise. In my professional progression
I have been captured by the "building
block" principle: why fix the roof if the
foundation is crumbling? This has
constrained me to focusing on QM and SR.
Anyway, I'm frequently surprised by how
far what I have learned there takes me
even in HEP (now and then).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">It
turns out that someone posted the 97 paper
Mark cited; too convenient to pass up, I
took a look. Turns out I recognized it, I
had read at it perhaps 10 years ago.
Then, as again now, I found the idea of
building the electron out of fields (a
beloved idea for Einstein) flawed (in my
view) the way certain concepts current in
QM are. In short: fields are defined in
terms of their inferred effect on
infinitesimal "test charges." Without
them, and the source charges, the current
and charge in Maxwell's eqs. are zero and
so then the fields too. Thus, one is
straightaway in a circular ... This is
at least a serious lexicographical
problem---minimally we need a new word,
"E&B-fields" wont do. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Doesn't
the term a "charged" photon (itself, un-
or precharged, an inconsistently defined
entity!) gets us even deeper into a
linguistic black hole? Spin too, is
another troubled notion; there is
absolutely no evidence that any entity is
(or has) spinning outside of a magnetic
field. Point charges can't spin but they
can gyrate; so if they do, as they must
(per classical E&M), in a B/H field
... </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">So
why does it (your 97 electron model) work
so well? I don't know, and can't take the
time to figure it out without cutting into
my current projects, but one has to
recognize the possiblity that it is the
inevitable consequence of a fortuotous
choice of inputs, then, by the sort of
logic exploited by dimensional analysis,
every thing else just follows. Another
factor perhaps in play here is a sort of
dualism between particless and fields,
much like that between lines and planes in
projective geometry. If sheaths of
particle trajecotiries are dual to
particle motion, then fields (i.e.,
eviserated orbit patterns) capture the
motion of the true ontological primative
elements: particles. This sort of concept
at least breaks out of the "circle". </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Regarding
scattering, the issue motivating my
injection to begin with; clearly a static
point charge will look like a point
charge. But, what bugs me, is that if the
point target is moving uncontrollably and
unknowably, but confined (basically) to a
certain region,is it not possible,
enevitable actually, that the scattering
(statistically over many repeats) will
evidence something of the "internal
structure" of the uncontrolable motion,
thus, for example, preventing the
"resolution" of impuned internal
structure. This would seem to me to lead
to much confusion or mushy talk. Not so?
Some of the liguistic dressing to various
fundamental theories in physics these
days, seems to me to actually be
compatible with the imagery I'm
suggesting, but never quite gat around to
saying it clearly and explicitly---another
large part of my motivation for responding
to Mark's shot at Albrecht's doublets.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Zitter
forces: One fact, experimentally
established as well as anything in
physics, is that a charge is, as described
by Gauss's Law, in interaction with every
other charge in the universe, and, insofar
as Gauss's Law has no "pause button," has
been so since the big bang (modulao ntis)
and will remain so until the big crunch.
While many exterior charges are far away
and reduced by 1/r^2, etc. they add up and
there are quite a number of them! Thus,
no electron, per John Dunn, is an island.
In consequence, it zitters! Like the
rest of us. Further, how would one "see"
this scale of motion as such in a
scattering experiment? Maybe it is beinng
seen, it's the foggy structure preventing
resolution of the imagined internals.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Maybe
we are well advised not to write off
Albrecht's duals, even if he himself has
little to say regarding their origin.
Obviously, breaking up a single charge
via scattering-type experiments cannot
eject a virtual particle. It wouldn't
acutally exist, it would be a stand-in for
the effect of polarization of the remaing
universe, moreover, as it all zitters to
and fro. So far, I see no objection here
expcept that this notion is not kosher
sociologically! Fatal in career terms,
but not logically.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Enough
for the moment, Best regards, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span></p>
<div name="quote" style="margin-left:7.5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></strong><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Dienstag,
29. September 2015 um 10:52 Uhr<br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Von:</span></strong> "John
Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"
target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">An:</span></strong> "<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"
target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>>,
"Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>,
"Richard Gauthier" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
target="_blank">richgauthier@gmail.com</a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Cc:</span></strong> "Joakim
Pettersson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joakimbits@gmail.com"
target="_blank">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"
target="_blank">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>,
"Anthony Booth" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"
target="_blank">abooth@ieee.org</a>><br>
<strong><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Betreff:</span></strong> Re:
[General] research papers</span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Dear
everyone especially Al, Albrecht
and Richard,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
have been meaning to weigh-in for
some time, but term has just
started and I’m responsible for
hundreds of new students, tens of
PhD’s, there is only one of me and
my mind is working on less than
ten percent capacity.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
think we have to distinguish
between what is know,
experimentally, and our precious
(to us) little theoretical models.
Please remember everyone that
theory is just theory. It is fun
to play with and that is what we
are all doing. The primary thing
is first to understand experiment
– and that is hard as there is a
huge amount of mis-information in
our “information” technology
culture.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">You
are right, Al, that Martin has not
carried out experiments, directly,
himself, on the electron size in
both high energy and at low
energy, but I have.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
have many papers, published in the
most prestigious journals, on
precisely those topics. They HAVE
had much interest (in total more
than ten thousand citations). I
have sat up, late at night, alone,
performing experiments both with
the largest lepton microscope ever
made (The EMC experiment at CERN)
and with my superb (best in the
world at the time) millikelvin
Cryostat looking at precisely the
inner structure of single
electrons spread out over sizes
much (orders of magnitude) larger
than my experimental resolution.
It is widely said, but simply not
true, that “no experiment resolves
the electron size”. This comes,
largely, from simple ignorance of
what the experiments show. I have
not only seen inside single
electrons, but then used the
observed properties and structure,
professionally and in widely
published and cited work, to
design new devices. Have had them
made and measured (in
collaboration with others), and
seen them thenwork both as
expected, but also to reveal
deeper mysteries again involving
the electron size, its quantum
spin, its inner charge
distribution and so on. That work
is still going on, now carried by
my old colleagues and by the rest
of the world. Nano – my device was
the first nanosemiconductor
device. Spintronics, designed the
first devices used for this. Inner
workings of spin , and the
exclusion principle Martin and I
hope to crack that soon! Fun! All
welcome!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now
where Martin is coming from, and
where he, personally, late at
night etc … HAS done lots of
professional experiments and has
been widely cited is in playing
the same kind of games with light
that I have done with electrons.
This means that, acting together,
we really know what we are talking
about in a wide range of physics.
Especially particle scattering,
quantum electron transport, and
light. We may be making up the
theories, but we are not making up
a wide and deep understanding of
experiment.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
take your point – and you are so
right -that there are so many
things one would like to read and
understand and has not yet got
round to. So much and so little
time. Ore papers written per
second than one can read per
second. There is, however, no
substitute for actually having
been involved in those very
experiments to actually understand
what they mean.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">So
what I am about to say is not
going to be “shooting from the
hip”, but is perhaps more like
having spent a couple of decades
developing a very large rail gun
which has just been loaded for its
one-shot at intergalactic
exploration …</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now
I hope you will not take this
badly … it is fun to think about
this but here goes</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Here
is what you said (making you
blue):</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">You
have not done an experiment, but
(at best) a calculation based on
some hypothtical input of your
choise. Maybe it's good, maybe
not.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Not
so: I have done the experiments!
Myself. This is exactly why I
started looking into the extant
models decades ago, found them
sadly lacking, and hence set out
to devise new ones that did agree
with experiment at both low and
high energy. This is the whole
point! </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
Sun scatters as a point only those
projectiles that don't get close.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">True,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
So far, no scattering off
elecrtons has gotten close enough
to engage any internal structure,
"they" say (I#ll defer to experts
up-to-date).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Not
so. Lots of papers on this. Some
by me. See e.g. Williamson,
Timmering, Harmans, Harris and
Foxon Phys Rev 42 p 7675. Also – I
am an expert (up to date) on HEP
as well. A more correct statement
is that no high-energy scattering
experiment has RESOLVED any
internal structure in free
electrons. If this was all you
knew (and for many HEP guys it
seems to be) then one might
interpret this as meaning the
electron was a point down to
10-18m. It is not. It cannot be.
It does not have enough mass to
account for its spin (even if at
lightspeed) if it is that small.
Work it out!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Nevertheless,
electrons are in constant motion
at or near the speed of light
(Zitterbewegung) and therefore at
the time scales of the projectiles
buzz around (zittern) in a certain
amout of space, which seems to me
must manifest itself as if there
were spacially exteneded structure
within the scattering
cross-section. Why not?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Because
this is no good if one does not
have the forces or the mechanism
for making it “zitter”.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">More
importantly -experimentally-
because that is not what you see.
If it was just zittering in space
one could see that zitter. What
you see (in deep inelastic lepton
scattering, for example), is that
there is no size scale for lepton
scattering. That is, that no
structure is resolved right down
to 10^-18 metres. This is NOT the
same thing as an electron being a
point. That is why one says (if
one knows a bit about what one is
talking about) that it is
“point-like” and not “point”
scattering. These qualifiers
ALWAYS matter. Point-like – not a
point. Charged photon- not a
photon. Localised photon – not a
photon. Vice-Admiral- not an
admiral. Vice-president- more a
reason for not shooting the
president!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">That
structure is not resolved does NOT
mean that the electron is
point. This is widely accepted as
fact, but just represents a (far
too widespread) superficial level
of understanding. Any
inverse-square, spherically
symettric force-field has this
property (eg spherical planets if
you do not actually hit them). The
real problem is to understand how
it can appear spherically
symettric and inverse square in
scattering while ACTUALLY being
much much larger than this. This
is exactly what I started out
working on in 1980 and have been
plugging away at ever since.
Exactly that! You need to explain
all of experiment: that is what
this is all about. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Not
to defend Albrecht's model as he
describes it, but many folks (say
Peter Rowlands at Liverpool, for
example) model elemtary particles
in terms of the partiicle itself
interacting with its induced
virtual image (denoted by Peter as
the "rest of the universe").
This "inducement" is a kind of
polarization effect. Every charge
repells all other like charges and
attracts all other unlike charges
resulting in what can be modeled
as a virtual charge of the
opposite gender superimposed on
itself in the static
approximation. But, because the
real situation is fluid, the
virtual charge's motion is delayed
as caused by finite light speed,
so that the two chase each other.
Etc. Looks something like
Albrecht's pairs.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Yes
I know. This is the same kind of
maths as “image charges” used all
the time in modelling the solid
state. These are all models. All
models have features. We need to
confront them with experiment.
Problem with the pairs is you
don’t see any pairs. If one of the
pair has zero mass-energy it is
not there at all. If there was a
pair, bound to each other with
some forces, then one would see
something similar to what one sees
in proton scattering (see below),
and you do not. One then has to
explain why and how this process
occurs, every time. You always
(and only) see one thing for
electrons, muons. You see a single
object for the electron, and an
internal structure for the proton.
This is what your theory has to
deal with. Really. Properly. In
detail. At all energies.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
too havn't read your 97 paper yet,
but I bet it's unlikely that you
all took such consideration into
account.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">You
could not know this, but his could
not be more wrong. We did. You did
not specify the bet. Lets make it
a beer. You owe me (and Martin) a
beer! If you have not yet read the
paper by the time we next meet I
think you should buy all the
beers! Deal?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
whole point of the paper my reason
for leaving high energy physics at
all, the seven years of work
Martin and I put into it to that
point, was exactly to resolve this
mystery – on the basis of an
“electron as a localised photon”.
My subsequent work has been to try
to develop a proper field theory
to deal with the problems inherent
I the old model (unknown forces)
and in the Dirac theory (ad hoc
lump of mass) (amongst others).
This is the point of the new
theory of light and matter:an
attempt to sort all that out. You
should read it too! Do that and I
will buy you a beer!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now
Richard, while I am disagreeing
with everyone I am going to
disagree with you too! You keep
saying that the electron apparent
size scales with gamma – and you
keep attributing me with agreeing
with you (and Martin and Viv and
Chip). Let me say this once and
for all: I DO NOT agree with
this. Now Viv and Chip must speak
for themselves, but I’m pretty
sure Martin would (largely –
though not completely) agree me
here. I have said this many times
to you – though perhaps not
specifically enough. It is not
quite wrong – but far too simple.
It scales ON AVERAGE so. I agree
that it changes apparent size-
yes, but not with gamma- no. How
it actually scales was discussed
in the 1997 paper, and the
mathematics of this is explained
(for example) in my “Light” paper
at SPIE (see Eq. 19). Gamma = ½(
x+ 1/x). Also, this is amongst
other things, in Martin’s “Light
is Heavy” paper. Really the
apparent size scales BOTH linearly
AND inverse linearly (as x and 1/x
then). It is the average of these
that gives gamma. This is how
relativity actually works. You do
not put things in, you get things
out. You need to look at this and
understand how gamma is related.
Best thing is to go through the
maths yourself, then you will see.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
bottom line is that the reason one
does not resolve the electron size
is that, in a collision, this size
scales like light. It gets smaller
with increasing energy. Linearly.
Likewise the scattering exchange
photon scales like light.
Linearly. The ratio for head on
collisions remains constant – but
the exchange photon is always
about an order of magnitude bigger
that the electron (localised
photon). This is WHY it can be big
(10^-13 m) and yet appear small.
I said this in my talk, but I know
how hard it is to take everything
in.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">One
does not see internal structure
because of this effect – and the
fact that the electron is a SINGLE
object. Not composite – like a
proton (and Albrecht’s model).</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now
what would one see with lepton
scatting on protons? I have dozens
of papers on this (and thousands
of citations to those papers) – so
this is not shooting from the hip.
Let me explain as briefly and
simply as I can. Lock and load …</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">At
low energies (expresses as a
length much less than 10^-15 m or
so), one sees point-like
scattering from, what looks like,
a spherically symettric charge
distribution. Ok there are
differences between positive
projectiles (which never overlap)
and negative, but broad brush this
is so. There is then a
transitional stage where one sees
proton structure – some
interesting resonances and an
effective “size” of the proton
(though recently this has been
shown to be (spectactularly
interestingly) different for
electron and muon scattering!
(This means (obviously) that the
electron and muon have a different
effective size on that scale). At
much higher energies one begins to
see (almost) that characteristic
point-like scattering again, from
some hard bits in the proton.
Rutherford atom all over again.
These inner parts have been called
“partons”. Initially, this was the
basis –incorrect in my view – of
making the association of quarks
with partons. Problem nowadays is
that the three valence quarks
carry almost none of the
energy-momentum of the proton - -
keeps getting less and less as the
energies go up. I think this whole
quark-parton thing is largely
bullshit. Experimentally!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Now
Albrecht you make some good
points. You are absolutely right
to quote the experiments on the
relativity of time with clocks and
with muons. You are also right
that one is not much better off
with double loops (or any other
kinds of loops) than with two
little hard balls. This is a
problem for any model of the
electron as a loop in space (Viv,
John M, Chip, John D – this is why
the electron cannot be a little
spatial loop – it is not
consistent with scattering
experiments!). Now this is a
problem in space-space but not in
more complex spaces as Martin and
I have argued (see SPIE electron
paper for up to date description
of this – from my perspective). It
is more proper to say the loops
are in “momentum space” though
this is not quite correct either.
They are in the space(s) they are
in – all nine degrees of freedom
(dimensions if you like) of them.
None of the nine are “space”. For
me, they are not little loops in
space. In space they are
spherical. You are not correct –
as the DESY director said and as I
said in the “panel” discussion-
that one would not “see” this. One
would. Only if one of the balls
were not there ( I like your get
out of saying that!), would one
observe what one observes. In my
view, however, if it is not there
it is not there. I’m open to
persuasion if you can give me a
mechanism though!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Regards,
John W.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>