<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Chip:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In my view, both photons and waves are imaginary constructs to assist thinking about E&M interactions, which in the final analysis is described by the sum of all Gaussian 1/r² interactions (with delay, i.e., the Lenard-Wichert potentials, etc.). The Gaussian comes closest to what the interaction actually IS (as onta, not virtual or represntational or ....). The idea that light is quantized comes from the fact that it is observed exclusively with one or another version of the photoelectric effect made up of countable electrons. Fields, <em>per se</em>, are never seen, just the resulting photo currents. Spin (angular momentum) for light is no problem, it is a multibody effect from the timing of various oscillations in the transverse direction. [I think spin in a photon is actually never seen for a single photo electron detection, but is deduced statistically from multiple measurements of multibody processes. If anybody thinks they know better, please quote me chapter and verse regarding the experimental observation method.]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Wave ideas come from Fourier analysis. Each so-called wave is actually just one Fourier component---often the largest one, the others being considered noise, etc. The real sginal is, again, the sum of the Gaussian interactions for all charges in the sending device (antenna) with all charges in the receiving device (antenna). All Fourier componets are unreal, just aids for calculation. This is an old, historical debate brougt up as criticism of Fourier. Namely, the components of a short time pulse extend from -inf. to +inf, and it was arguend that, if real, they would telegraph today tomorrows news! But not just tomorrow, for all time!! Eventually it was concluded that, only the sum is real, all components are fictitous.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards, Al</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <chipakins@gmail.com><br/>
<b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</div>
<div name="quoted-content"><!--p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {
margin: 0.0in;
font-size: 12.0pt;
font-family: Cambria , serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: blue;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: purple;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.EmailStyle17 {
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
-->
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Hi Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">When we model the electron in this manner, it winds up (eventually) defining a thing called a photon. This seems to always happen because the quantization we observe in the energy of the electron “spills over” into our understanding of what the nature of propagating energy (light) must be. Spin angular momentum, it seems, MUST also be due to a form of confinement. The same set of balanced forces which cause spin angular momentum would have to also cause a form of quantization and “localization”. And when we create equations, much as John W has done, to describe a condition in which this spin angular momentum is created for the electron, it means that the rules we suggest to describe the observed properties of the electron also have an impact on the way light behaves.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Thoughts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border: none;border-top: solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; pete@leathergoth.com; david williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>; Nicholas Bailey <Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<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;">Some mothers are more erudite than others. But, erudite mothers matter too!</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;">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. </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;">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? </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;">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.</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;">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!).</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;">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;"> </span></p>
<div style="border: none;border-left: solid rgb(195,217,229) 1.5pt;padding: 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in 8.0pt;margin-left: 7.5pt;margin-top: 7.5pt;margin-right: 3.75pt;margin-bottom: 3.75pt;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 7.5pt;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;"> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 05:20 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_parent">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br/>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "david williamson" <<a href="david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_parent">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> "<a href="pete@leathergoth.com" target="_parent">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="pete@leathergoth.com" target="_parent">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>, "Nicholas Bailey" <<a href="Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_parent">Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Hello everyone,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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 style="color: black;"> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;">to unsubscribe</span></a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at af.kracklauer@web.de <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></body></html>