<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<div>Hi Chip:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Some comments below prompt me to point out that one result of formal logic is that, ALL logical thinking is based on an alogical selection of <em>a priori</em> items. If you want to "explain charge" by starting with 'fields,' then such fields are left unexplained. Per formal logic, the only issue is: Which/what alogical "primative elements"?</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> Dienstag, 17. November 2015 um 03:26 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: Calibri , sans-serif;
}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {
color: rgb(5,99,193);
text-decoration: underline;
}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
color: rgb(149,79,114);
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.EmailStyle17 {
color: black;
}
*.MsoChpDefault {
font-size: 10.0pt;
}
div.WordSection1 {
page: WordSection1;
}
-->
<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Hi John W.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Yes, I agree that field is not the most fundamental, not the best we can do given the available data. I have had some time to work through a bit of the math in you papers, and find it to be extremely similar to what I am thinking the full set of field equations actually are (for what that is worth). I am very encouraged, but it takes me some time to digest the detail, so bear with me. I have a habit of trying to go step by step and prove everything. Sometimes a good habit, but time consuming.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Yes, the perfect balancing of the forces we know must exist from the empirical evidence. Yet in agreement with what we have been able to establish, like Maxwell’s equations.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Thank you.</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;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br/>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 16, 2015 6:56 PM<br/>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br/>
<b>Cc:</b> pete@leathergoth.com; Nick Bailey <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com>; David Williamson <david.williamson@ed.ac.uk><br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] SU(2) equation set</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Hello Chip,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">Blue …</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Hi John D</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Thank you. And yes. More fundamental, meaning a bit simpler.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: blue;">Yes, field is a bit simpler than “charge”, in that charge leads to the potentials (with a proper definition, and the potentials then lead to the fields. Also there is some hope of understanding charge from fields, but no hope of understanding chage if one starts with it a-priori.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: blue;">Agreed wholeheartedly. You do not need an extra thing to “make the light go round and round” and generate the angular momentum. The thing only works with angular momentum. It has to be there to balance the vector – as in equation 21. If you do that you get force-free motion. No that there are no forces – just that the forces balance. That is what the new equations 6-13 do for you.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: blue;">You and me both. I have found one that works though. That is wha the two papers are about. The forces are in there. Balanced. Look at it!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">True.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: blue;">Yes this is true. A standing wave IS just energy goin<a name="_GoBack"></a>g back and forth. The energy in the hydrogen atom is not in a standing but a stationary wave. The electron solution, however, is not so different from that of the hydrogen atom, except that one, necessarily, has a double loop. It has to be a double loop for two reasons: firstly it is a turning twisted solution (eq 21), secondly the double twist solves the base (extended) equation with the rest-mass term, dG=0. The (electron) turn ends up being in a space parallel to, but not the same as the (photon) twist. You will understand this last statement once we get into the nitty gritty of the simulations we are going to do together.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Thoughts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: blue;">Lots!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman" , serif;color: black;">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Times , serif;color: black;"><img alt="Description: https://mail.campus.gla.ac.uk/owa/14.3.248.2/themes/resources/clear1x1.gif" height="3" id="_x0000_i1025" src="file:///\\localhost\Users\jwilliamson\Library\Caches\TemporaryItems\msoclip\0\clip_image002.png" width="3"/></span></p>
</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>