<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Chip:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Are you certain it didn't come over a detour from the same ultimate source? [Keep in mind that so far the Semiclassical School has an unbroken record of explantions for 2nd QM effects.]</div>
<div> </div>
<div>---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> Montag, 16. November 2015 um 17:36 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.EmailStyle18 {
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;">One note:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">As mentioned earlier, my current thought that light is quantized did not come from the concepts you mention but from a completely different analysis.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">You wrote…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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, <i>per se</i>, are never seen, just the resulting photo current.</span><span style="color: black;">”</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>
<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> Monday, November 16, 2015 8:52 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; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk>; Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk><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;"> </span></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;">My responces in <strong><span style="font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;">Bold.</span></strong></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;"> Montag, 16. November 2015 um 05:11 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>><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>>, "Nick Bailey" <<a href="nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_parent">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "David Williamson" <<a href="david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_parent">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;">Replies ....</span></p>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"/></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Tahoma , sans-serif;color: black;"> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 4:25 PM<br/>
<b>To:</b> <a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">Hi Chip:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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, <i>per se</i>, are never seen, just the resulting photo current</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">You keep saying this Al, but I think it is just not true. Currents can produce field and (changing) field a current. It is not one or the other, but both. Sure one can describe a lot as a mere potential, with delay- but it is severely limited description The "delay" is not magic, but a function of the field propagation rate (the speed of light - the propagation rate of pure fields).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">It can also be said that, chrges exist and interact via Gaussian (1/r²_delay). The field concept is superfluous. The delay is (in one sense) magic, all of it is! Where did it come from? The ideas I'm propounding lead to the simplest, self-consistent mathematical description of how this magic seems to work.</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br/>
<br/>
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">The induced currents in this case are in the material of the magnets. Manybody effects. In the end B/H fields are a means of taking the delay into account. In well chosen units Maxwell's eqs. go to electrostatics (Gaussian interaction describable with just E/D fields) when c-->inf. . </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br/>
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents? </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">No measurment is being made. But obviously the electrons in the outer layer of pants repel those in the chair ....</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Set up a standing wave EM cavity. One can measure the fields – obviously. Just with a magnet or the hairs on the back of your hand. Photocurrents?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color: black;">Silly; obviously if no currents anywhere were engendered, there would be no effect! </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Ok I agree one can look at the “current” interaction. But that presumes one knows what a “current” is. Not a good onta!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">As long as I'v been in the business, a "current" has been a flow of multiple electrons. Stick your finger in a socket and then tell me there was no "onta" there.</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br/>
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;"> </span><br/>
<br/>
<span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> 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.]</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Ok – single photon emission from atoms – any chemistry textbook – strongest lines – one unit of angular momentum. Likewise absorption spectroscopy – one photon at a time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">Balony! A spectral line from a single electron transition would never be visible. Tell me about absorbtion spectroscopy at the single photon (i.e. single photo electron) level!</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">Fact is, it's damn hard to register a single photo electron, mostly it's done by counting the cascades it is presumed to initiate. Fact is, a single photo electron reveals nothing about the spin (really the polarization of the grand sum of signals). All of that kind of info comes from obvious multibody experiments. What is a "single photon spcetral line"?</span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Also positronium decay. Two photons short, three photons long. Explanation. Spin 1 photons and QED. Any HEP textbook. Please explain how “multibody effects” achieve this this. Chapter and verse.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">I'v read the text books too. I know what the orthodox explantion for certain results is. I also know that, that explantion in the end employs a long long line of inferences from the earlier chapters in those tests that are based on all kinds of mystical BS, or just the "Standard Model" with its 66 free paramenters! If you'r happy with that, go with it! My researches are aimed at the nonsense in the early chapters. </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Nope, one can have perfectly good waves with more than one fourier component. For example that of a pure note on a flute (two). Fourier analysis is an interesting human concept, but not the fundamental basis of wave motion. … Sorry – as you say below as well…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">This is evidence that you'r not reading what I wrote! I repeadly stressed that the only real (ontic) interaction is the SUM of ALL Fouier components. Any single compnent is only at best an approximation (often not so bad becasue it is by far the largest term---if the special functions chosen correspond to the geometry of the sender/receiver complex. Also, note that Fourier analysis is possible with the soltins of any so-called Sturm-Liouville equ. (hyperbolic diffeq). </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">It may,indeed, be described as such at some level- but the quantum-mechanics of the process is simply not encompassed by the formalism. For me better onta than charges, magic delays and 4-potentials are space and time and root-energy. These lead, for me to the (4) potentials AND the fields – both from a deeper level. I do not think one is ever going to “get” fields properly by presuming they are really just arising from point charges. Perhaps I am wrong, but<a name="_GoBack"></a> that is a personal choice.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> <strong><span style="font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;">Fine! "You pays your ticket, and you gets your laundry." Long ago I noted that, there does not exist a manifestly covariant, self-consistent set of wave equations for interaction entities. This represents a symptom of a serious incompletion of even just the QM formalism (not to mention interpretation). Investigations revealed that the obstacles to formulating such an equation were the features of mainline physics leading to the twin paradox and entanglement. I have taken my shots at these issues. Over the years, +/- 75 mainline big names have promissed me that as soon as they have time, they would produce devistating criticisms. So far, none have found the time! </span></strong></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">Counter arguments welcome. I will be delighted if I hear a new one!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">I cannot imagine my arguments above were new to you!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Cambria , serif;color: black;">Right! Mainline texts are known to me. What I find in the first chapters (if anything, really) is not satisfying. Mostly egregious errors in logic or math pop out the first few pages! In your papers, for example, you'r, at best, misusing the term "field." Your use will invest circularitiy, which will be "not even inconsistent" in the end. "Space" and "time" are capacitites---empty boxes. That's what THESE words mean. Seems to me that, if you want to chage their meaning and attribute more than their usual meaning by virtue of other properties, it would be well advised to coin a new word. </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">Best regards, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: blue;">Cheers, John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">Likewise, Al </span></strong></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<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;color: black;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> Sonntag, 15. November 2015 um 13:22 Uhr<br/>
<b>Von:</b> "Chip Akins" <<a href="chipakins@gmail.com" target="_parent">chipakins@gmail.com</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>><br/>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<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;color: black;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;color: black;"> General [<a href="general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM<br/>
<b>To:</b> <a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_parent">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>; <a href="pete@leathergoth.com" target="_parent">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; david williamson <<a href="david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_parent">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>; Nicholas Bailey <<a href="Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_parent">Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_parent">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">Hi John:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">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;color: black;"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">ciao, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> </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;color: black;">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;"> 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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;color: black;">_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <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></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 9.0pt;font-family: Verdana , sans-serif;">_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_parent">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <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></span></p>
</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>