<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Chip:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I think the confinement thing does cause angular momentum in light as well. And I think this thing is displacement current. Something like <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deep_water_wave.gif"><span style='color:#000099'>this gif</span></a>. In the canoe analogy there’s this current of water that pushes you 1m up, then takes you back down again. Only when you look closely at the red-dot test particles, it isn’t just an up-and-down motion, it’s rotational. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I agree that this isn’t the same angular momentum as that in the electron. Try to imagine a water wave going round a water-world planet, then imagine what happens to the red-dot test-particle motion as you shrink the planet down to the size of a wavelength. Then shrink it some more. You end up with a static skew because the rotational path of the wave matches the angular momentum of the test particles. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>As for how energy behaves in space, shrug, <i>space waves</i>. IMHO it’s rather like a pulse of “more space” propagating through space. But the wave is associated with potential rather than field. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Yes, light is quantized. See Susskind talking about it </span><span style='color:#000099'><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNg819PiZY"><span style='color:#000099'>in this video</span></a> where at 2 minutes 50 second he rolls his marker round saying angular momentum is quantized. The quantization is that <i>you wave your marker round the same circumference regardless of wavelength</i>. It’s like all light waves are the same amplitude. Sounds weird I know, but the dimensionality of action h is momentum x distance, and look at this:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><img border=0 width=577 height=413 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D120A8.912C9E30"></span><span style='color:#000099'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Hence light is quantized, and it’s still a wave. As for <i>the math doesn’t work</i>, well, according to Maxwell, light consists of transverse undulations, so displacement current does what it says on the can. When the wave moves through itself in the double-loop configuration it displaces its own path into a closed path. You can only do this at 511keV because only one wavelength will do for that common amplitude. And when you have done it, we don’t call it a photon any more. We call it an electron. And the only thing that’s changed is the path. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>As for what energy is, it’s usually dynamical when we’re talking about photons and electrons, but in the end I cannot distinguish from space. A static gravitational field is something like injecting some gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly into a continuum made of… gin-clear ghostly elastic jelly. Note the energy-pressure diagonal in the stress-energy-momentum diagonal. And the shear stress term: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><img border=0 width=236 height=143 id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image002.png@01D120A8.912C9E30"></span><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>I don’t think the standing wave thing is an analogy. I think electrons exist as standing waves. Let’s face it, we hold an electron in the palm of our hand, and we can diffract electrons. It has a definite wave nature, and it isn’t going <i>thataway</i> at c. IMHO it’s going round and round like <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06478">Martin’s light in a box</a>, only it’s in a box of its own making. Yes, that going round and round isn’t the same thing as going back and forth. And yes, the motion of the electron’s confined energy in the hydrogen atom is different to the motion of the energy in a free electron. But gamma-gamma pair production isn’t magic, and nor is annihilation back to gamma photons. You just jiggle the box. Or you start with a rod and you form it into a hoop. Then you can spin your hoop around a central point, like a wheel. And on top of that you can <i>hula</i> that hoop. Or you can play with sparklers. Sweep your sparkler round and round in a circle for a free electron, then swivel your hips too for an s- orbital. Make a figure-of-eight for a p-orbital. Or a four-leaved clover for a d-orbital. And so on. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Yes the maths is tricky, but you can still make some progress from the hard scientific evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#000099'>JohnD <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> 16 November 2015 14:02<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Hi John D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Thank you. And yes. More fundamental, meaning a bit simpler.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>But the thing that makes the energy in the electron go round and round, given what we know about light and the electron… this confinement/rotation thing, it seems must cause angular momentum in light as well. Not the same angular momentum, for the light energy is in a simpler configuration than the fermionic energy, but the same set of causes: energy behaving like energy behaves in space.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>I have explored literally dozens of different scenarios, some conjured up by me, many suggested by others, to explain just how this energy is confined in the electron. (Including trying to figure out some form of self-diffraction causing confinement, but that does not work given what we know. The math does not work. We have to break too many of the known “laws” to force fit this solution.) The only viable and supportable solutions I have found, require that light have a component of angular momentum. Yes, superposition, and Chandra’s NIW could produce any measured polarization for light, but that would not alleviate the twist term requirement in field equations to explain electron confinement. And if that twist term must exist, it is most likely that light is also quantized. But when we say that light is quantized it does not mean that we are saying it is not a wave. Light is a wave, and apparently it comes in quantized packets, but it is still a wave.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>And likewise, the electron is a wave. It is in a quantized and localized form, but it is a wave nonetheless. It is a very robustly confined wave, so it has particle behaviors, but it is a wave. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Regardless of my personal views, energy is what it is, and it does what it does. Given the knowns, that leads to a narrow set of possibilities.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Just looking for exactly what it IS, rather than what I would prefer it is, or what I think might explain it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>By the way, having worked quite a bit with standing waves (the EM variety), the standing wave analogy does not work for me. For me, energy going round and round is not really the same thing as energy going back and forth. The standing wave analogy leaves out too much of the important detail. The motion of the electron’s confined energy in the hydrogen atom, is different than the motion of the energy in a free electron. And that difference is very informative. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Duffield<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 2:23 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; 'Nick Bailey' <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; 'Mark, Martin van der' <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>; 'David Williamson' <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>; <a href="mailto:qiuhonghu8@gmail.com">qiuhonghu8@gmail.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'>Chip:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'>I’d like to back that up. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'>In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Electron_properties"><span style='color:#000099'>atomic orbitals</span></a> electrons “exist as standing waves”. If you kick an electron out of an orbital, it <i>still</i> exists as a standing wave. Because when a 511keV wave goes round and round just right, it doesn’t look like a wave any more, it looks like a field. <i>Standing wave, standing field</i>. Note that this means the messenger particle is more fundamental than the field it’s said to mediate. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#000099'>John D<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt'> General [<a 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>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> 16 November 2015 04:12<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Nick Bailey <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; David Williamson <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'>Replies ....</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></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="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">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="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Hi Chip:</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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/rČ 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></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).<br><br>Take two magnets. Feel the force. . photocurrents? One is talking properly about small modifications of a quantum solution -no single emitted electrons!</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'><br>Sit on the chair: field chair v field pants. Photocurrents? </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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!<br><br></span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'><br> 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Best regards, Al</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'>Cheers, John.</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Times",serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word' name=quote><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="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com">chipakins@gmail.com</a>><br><b>An:</b> "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Hi Al<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Thoughts?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b><a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 15, 2015 2:29 AM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>; <a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; david williamson <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>; Nicholas Bailey <<a href="mailto:Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk">Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Hi John:</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 dČA=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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>ciao, Al</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Gesendet:</span></b><span lang=EN-US 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br><b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "david williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>, "Nicholas Bailey" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Hello everyone,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><o:p></o:p></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="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">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><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>