<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
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 1107305727 0 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:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
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:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
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;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Dear All,<br>
<br>
I think Joakim makes some important points. It is fine to express certain aspects in a simpler basis, but not fine to adopt a simpler basis a-priori. We have to move towards a single mathematics not a mish-mash as at present. We need to, eventually solve Hilbert's
sixth problem. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">The problem, in my view, with incorporating simpler systems - such as one does when one makes the ansatz U(1) x SU(2) X SU(3),
in the standard model, for example, is that one has already abstracted too much out to be able to describe the ORIGIN of the U(1) or SU(2) or SU(3) one has put in a-priori. Not good. Maybe neccessary - but these are the FUNDAMENTALS one is messing with. Get
the fundamentals wrong and there will be much bullshit down the line. Look around you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Now the vector potential ansatz for EM is indeed quite powerful, but if one insists on it ( as many do) one has already squeezed
oneself into a system too small to describe</span><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:Times" lang="EN-US"> everything at once. It is ok to find solutions in a more general system, decide where a simple vector potential may be enough (in the
free-space Lorenz gauge it is enough – as one can prove). Now I could spend time proving this. The next job would be to show that one can get the Coulomb gauge for perfectly spherically symmetric solution – in the frame where the solution is symmetric. Not
hard, but again – so what?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>An endless string of (next to) worthless publications taking one no further along the actual hard path.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">The term
</span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">d²A=0 is important, of course, but it is only one term in the more general equation d(dA) = 0, which is only a small part of the equation d(dG)
= 0, which encompasses BOTH ²A=0 AND the full set of Maxwell equations. The wave equation for the vector potential, for the electromagnetic field and for the spin density. All at once. At least that is the idea.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US">Now you make an important point that new things should correspond with older things in certain limits. Right, I agree entirely.
But, if better, it should also say where and why and within what limitations they may work. I have no intention, nor any time for, doing “me too” physics.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">Now Chip you say,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US">This idea of modeling the electron from a photon when
we know so little about light and whether photons are real, or just illusions caused by the quantization of matter, has troubled me too.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US">And</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US">For some time I had been of the opinion that it is possible
that light is simply continuous radiation. In some ways I would be delighted if we found that is the case. However it now seems to me that there simply has to be a form of quantization in order for light to display any spin angular momentum. So in my personal
view I am back to considering the “photon” to actually be a quantized energy form (no matter how distasteful that is to me).
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">I have said this before but will say it again. My new equations ARE continuous. They describe continuous electromagnetism. They are not a-priori quantized AT ALL.
<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This is the kind of thing Chandra keeps saying – and he is absolutely right. An enegineer (you or I then) one does not use photons if one wants to engineer something, but the Maxwell equations. They are simply of far more
practical use. Agreed!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">The new thing is that the new equations allow only quantized TRAVELLING wave solutions over long distances. The systems are completely free in the “near field”. They
also describe (one version of) Phat photons. I also predict fractionally quantised photons from fractional QHE emitters and absorbers (see “experimental tests” in the papers posted). If one could find unquantised, coherent sources they would predict unquantised
coherent electromagnetic radiation as well</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">Something else. Many folk seem to have got the idea that Martin and I are working on the base notion that that electron is a localized photon. Not any more. That was
indeed so in our nearly two decade old paper, but we were well aware then that basing a photon on an unknown electron or an electron on an unknown photon was equally dodgy.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops:60.6pt"><span style="font-family:
Times;mso-bidi-font-family:Times" lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">Since then we have been trying, night and day in my case, to develop a theory which derives BOTH the photon AND the electron from a deeper underlying theory. On this
we work together, then apart, each trying different routes and then merging and arguing them over decades of refinement. Others, such as Stephen have been involved from time to time as well. Martin is currently looking at a development of the Bateman method,
together with some (pretty spectacular) new stuff of his own. I am attempting to work from a new, linear set of equations of motion for light and matter for mass, current, field and spin (eqs 6-13). The input, for me, are not photon or electron, but space,
time and root-energy. Not a photon in sight – a priori. The “photon” solution, eq 21, comes out of proper consideration of the (relativistic) nature of space and time.be<span style="mso-spacerun:yes">
</span>It cannot be derived, or even written down, in an algebra simpler than that used. Look at it! Likewise the “electron” solution relates, not to the addition of a particle, but to the addition of a rest mass-term to electromagnetism. That is all.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">You know, no-one is a one-trick pony. That Einstein (or Bell, or de Broglie, or Dirac, or whoever) said, or believed this or that at one time or another in his very
long career is made a lot of, but does not mean much. He, like us, made a lot of mistakes as well- sometimes had to retrace his steps a long way. He even had certain of his ideas “disproved” by this or that experiment, where later he turned out to have been
right in the first place. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">That the electron may be a localized photon can be taken a surprisingly long way – it may even turn out to be “true” in some sense. The paper was fun, but it is not,
and was never going to be, the whole story (even if it proves to be part of the story). In any event, it is not just quite where Martin or myself are at the present moment. Both of us believe that neither the electron nor the photon is fundamental or elementary.
I will let Martin speak for himself, for me space, time and (square-root) energy are the starting points. Just and no more.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">Now there are others in the group who have gone a lot further than I in opening new ground in quite other directions (wait until you see Viv’s book!). My focus has
been on the fundamentals of space, time and energy. This is because I completely agree with Al on this one, the fundamentals are important. I hate with a passion the pseudo-clever methods of putting in super-complicated starting positions no-one can understand.
Proof by intimidation. I hate untestable theories – I think they hold up progress rather than make it. I know it may look as though that is what I am doing myself (sorry folk!). I’m not putting in complicated groups or ridiculous renormalization schemes, or
unphysical point particles, or mad stuff not observed in any experiment. At least not as far as I know. My theory IS testable and refutable by experiment. If (when) we hit any of those I hope it can be rescued – but maybe not. Martin and I have started from
ground-zero before (Stephen was there – he can tell you!). What I am playing with is just 4D spacetime and a (slightly extended) concept of energy. I’m just trying to have fun seeing how far I can get with that, at the moment<a name="_GoBack"></a>.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:
Times" lang="EN-US">Regards, John W.</span></p>
<b>From:</b> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Joakim Pettersson [joakimbits@gmail.com]<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF753011"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 12:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Cc:</b> pete@leathergoth.com; david williamson; Nicholas Bailey; Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>Hi Al,<br>
<br>
If you do generalize electrons to encompass all solutions in a 4D relativity space, if would be a very powerful viewpoint change that could help us understand the mathematics better in some (perhaps most) experiments and observations. That is a very good effort.
But it could also lead to more missed points, wrong assumptions and screw up the underlying mathematical equations so that their solutions become overly complex and perhaps even non-finite in other experiments and observations. It is like comparing apples
and oranges, or flux and charge, or location and momentum, or Feynman path integrals and wave functions. We always can have both views and others as well. It depends on the observer and the experiment which one is more convenient to work with for the person
interpreting the result.<br>
<br>
Hopefully we can some day work with the same underlying mathematics whichever basis we choose to describe its solutions in.
<br>
<br>
Going back and forth between a photo-electron representation and a photon representation is IMHO like doing scattering a experiment. We need to get rid of both representations and start looking at the underlying and common mathematics to understand what is
really going on in the experiment. Like John. Can we all please agree on that? <br>
<br>
If we do at some time agree on the underlying mathematics, there is no need to argue for or against a certain basis set - if it is complete enough to describe a set of experiments, it is useful for forecasting similar experiments. Like string theory - it is
good for describing what went in and out of a scattering experiment. We probably need to continue to use such tricks like that to describe reality until we all have quantum computers in our pockets (or brains) to do the analysis with. In the meantime, we need
to rely on people like John to talk to us like to his mother and hope it does make sense to us also ;-).<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Joakim<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2015-11-15 09:28, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>Hi John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some mothers are more erudite than others. But, erudite mothers matter too!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Much of what I see in your papers tickles memories of things I once knew rather well regarding differential manifolds, diffential forms, Clifford algebras, etc. dF=0, for example, written as d²A=0 says that A is an exact form, which gives it lots of nice
propeties---and so on and so forth. This is all very nice, but your terminology appears to me to be distinct from that in math/phys lit on the matter. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Do you have a paper somewhere that makes the comparison? Can you start your story in the histrocially conventional notation and then carefully introduce your specaializations so that the known maths consequences of what you'r about can just be looked
up rather than rediscovered? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Likewise, there are giant software packages for Clifford algebra applications in existence. While not at all easy to jump in and use them, it is still much easier than redoing the whole thing.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>BTW, as one who holds that photons do not exist (just photo electrons) I have grave indigestion over the idea of modeling the electron on the photon! Seems it ought be the other way around; there is credible empirical evidence for the existence of electrons,
where as there is none for photons (distinguished from photo electons!).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote">
<div><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>, "david williamson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">"pete@leathergoth.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">
<pete@leathergoth.com></a>, "Mark, Martin van der" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a>, "Nicholas Bailey" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hello everyone,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yes Al – I could not agree more. We can do better though, as I have said before. I always say to others that, if one truly understands anything, one should be able to explain it at any level. Mums are important!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">to unsubscribe</a></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader" target="_blank"></fieldset> <br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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:joakimbits@gmail.com" target="_blank">joakimbits@gmail.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/joakimbits%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>