<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=utf-8"><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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Book Antiqua";
panose-1:2 4 6 2 5 3 5 3 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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 style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Chip:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Andrew Worsley told me about this:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='position:relative;top:16.0pt;mso-text-raise:-16.0pt'><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:87pt;height:42pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image001.wmz@01D120A9.29D91730" o:title="" />
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=116 height=56 src="cid:image002.png@01D120A9.29D91730" v:shapes="_x0000_i1026"><![endif]></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Equation.3" ShapeID="_x0000_i1026" DrawAspect="Content" ObjectID="_1509209064">
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--><span style='position:relative;top:16.0pt;mso-text-raise:-16.0pt'><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1027" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:60.75pt;height:42pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image003.wmz@01D120A9.29D91730" o:title="" />
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=81 height=56 src="cid:image004.png@01D120A9.29D91730" v:shapes="_x0000_i1027"><![endif]></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Equation.3" ShapeID="_x0000_i1027" DrawAspect="Content" ObjectID="_1509209065">
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--></span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif'> = 1.60218 x10<sup>-19</sup> <i>C</i>, (1)</span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-align:justify;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>actual charge of the electron = 1.60218 x 10<sup>-19</sup></span><span style='font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> </span><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>C</span></i><i><span style='font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>, </span></i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>where <i>e </i>is the electron charge in Coulombs <i>C</i>,</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><span style='position:relative;top:6.0pt;mso-text-raise:-6.0pt'><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shape id="_x0000_i1028" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:14.25pt;height:18pt' o:ole="">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image005.wmz@01D120A9.29D91730" o:title="" />
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width=19 height=24 src="cid:image006.png@01D120A9.29D91730" v:shapes="_x0000_i1028"><![endif]></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OLEObject Type="Embed" ProgID="Equation.3" ShapeID="_x0000_i1028" DrawAspect="Content" ObjectID="_1509209066">
</o:OLEObject>
</xml><![endif]--></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:6.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:black'>is the electric constant, the ratio denoted by: ‘<i> </i>is directly based on the electron magnetic moment to Bohr magneton ratio (see Appendix G), <i>c </i>is the speed of light (for dimensions see Appendix E).</span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think he’s barking up the right tree.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#000099;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>JohnD<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br><b>Sent:</b> 16 November 2015 16:31<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='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'>I like your approach. Question everything until we get it right.<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'>The reason I currently believe that the fields are more fundamental is that using that approach, starting with the distortion of space caused by energy propagating through space, one can see a source for charge. I do not feel that charge is as fundamental as “fields” for several reasons, not the least of which is…<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='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'>4π<i>ε</i></span><sub><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'>0</span></sub><i><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'>ħcα</span></i><span class=apple-converted-space><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'> </span></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'>=<span class=apple-converted-space> </span><i>e</i></span><sup><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'>2<o:p></o:p></span></sup></p><p class=MsoNormal><sup><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#252525;background:white'><o:p> </o:p></span></sup></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Just from this one relationship it seems the half integral circular motion (propagation) of energy through space causes charge. (And there are many other such clues.)<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'>Since we are looking for cause, this seems the most reasonable view, because it gives us what appears to be viable and reasonable cause for charge and magnetism, as well as most everything else we can sense or measure.<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'>My question is… why would one consider charge to be fundamental when we can “reasonably” envision a more fundamental cause for charge?<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'>Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?<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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> 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> Monday, November 16, 2015 8:52 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>; 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>>; Nick Bailey <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</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 lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> <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'>Hi John:<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'> <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'>My responces in <strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Bold.</span></strong><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'> <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;word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space' name=quote><div style='margin-bottom:7.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Gesendet:</span></b><span lang=EN-US 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="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</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>Cc:</b> "<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<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>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div name=quoted-content><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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 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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><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 lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><br><br></span><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><br></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'>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><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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><b><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'>Silly; obviously if no currents anywhere were engendered, there would be no effect! </span></b><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><br></span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:blue'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><br><br></span><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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><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 lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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 lang=EN-US 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><strong><span lang=EN-US 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><span lang=EN-US style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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 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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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><strong><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black'>Likewise, Al </span></strong><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'><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 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><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;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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 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><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="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br><b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "david williamson" <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> "<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>>, "Nicholas Bailey" <<a href="mailto:Nicholas.Bailey@glasgow.ac.uk">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 lang=EN-US 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><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US 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="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></body></html>