<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi:<br>
<br>
This sounds like a model in which a principal particle is to be
described from its point of view (as it were) and as if the rest of
the universe does not react back. The moment two interacting
entities are to be described, then the idea of radial-time and even
more so, radial distance, requires different x-forms for/to each
interaction---maybe, but clumsy. Usually, the two (or more)
entities are referred to a "parameter space" (x,y,z,t) for which x_1
to x_2 can be pos./def. but then x_2 to x_1 isn't. Even t-intervals
can be negative, depending on whose "0" is used. <br>
<br>
Anyway, the one-way of time is wrt dynamical evolution, not the sign
of instantaneous intervals. The problem with the metric arises
because space is not related to time except through some physical
process, the nature of which is as often as not the basic issue:
"what is a photon/electron?". Sounds like a do-loop!<br>
<br>
Wolf's philosphy is OK, but the dynamics can be modeled with the lab
as just a nest for the parameter space, i.e., passive. This
presumes the lab observer is relative distant and weak. <br>
<br>
For what it's worth, Al<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27.11.2015 10:16, Mark, Martin van
der wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:091fcd3cffb14efc8de0235163da44fb@AM3PR90MB0100.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com"
type="cite">
<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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 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:"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;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.emailstyle20
{mso-style-name:emailstyle20;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Yes
John,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">and
the moment you take differences (intervals), the whole
problem disappears as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
direction of time is mainly a thing related to the structure
of an ensemble, the ultimate example being the universe as a
whole. It is related to the interaction of otherwise
independent things direction of flow of energy and loss/lack
of coherence.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Regards,
Martin
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="DE">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:navy" lang="DE"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Principal
Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Philips
Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">High
Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Prof.
Holstlaan 4</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">5656
AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Tel:
+31 40 2747548</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
John Williamson [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> vrijdag 27 november 2015 4:56<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>;
Nick Bailey <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Ariane Mandray
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a>; David Williamson
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk"><david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a>; Mark, Martin van der
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com"><martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Hello
Al and everyone.<br>
<br>
Good points.<br>
<br>
It is fairly straightforwards to put in time as
irreversible. Just switch to Polar, spherical or toroidal
co-ordinates (or pretty much anything except Cartesian)
and put time in as a (positive definite) radius. I have a
bit of trouble with thinking of space as being
"reversible" as well. Wolf emphasises that the observer
must be primary and he is right. Everything acting on any
observer is also uni-directional. Its is both "away" and
"ago". Think about it!<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div id="divRpF410184">
<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">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 26, 2015 2:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>;
Nick Bailey;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>;
Ariane Mandray; David Williamson; Mark, Martin van der<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Aw: RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Hi
John et al.:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Martin's
theorem has the heft & feel of a result for
topological spaces, not metric spaces. Metric
space-talk tends to get added by
mathematical-physicists who, mostly, are not
plowing through the minutia proving theorems,
but, all too often, doing symbolic gymnastics
with symbols---works sometimes, but cannot tell
when! I, for one, would like to see the basics
of your story in convential "Clifford-type"
notation. Putting a metric with signature
invoving both + & - is not really faithful
to the fact that time is irreversable! How do
you get that fact into the metric so that you
can have some confidence that what you are
writing about has relvance for the "lab"?
[Getting all kinds of numbers right can be a
result of the sort typically found by
dimentional analysis: nothing new, just pulling
out what was elsewhere put in.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Best,
Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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;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"> Donnerstag,
26. November 2015 um 13:36 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nick Bailey" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>,
"David Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>,
"Mark, Martin van der" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: Re: [General] Nature of
charge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">Hello Al,<br>
<br>
Yes it does have some bearing - and it
is certainly part of the truth - though
it is a bit more complicated than that
they merely appear as oscillations.
Also, what kind of behaviour one sees
depends on how one modifies the local
metric - and even with what handedness
and sign.<br>
<br>
Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you
who may not know what Al, Martin and I
are on about - let us be more specific
(for mothers!). The kind of metric which
Martin is talking about in his “everyone
on the equator” and that Al refers to in
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">“if
all dimentions are equivalent”</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">is
for a 4D space the metric (++++), where
all directions square to plus unity.
This is also the metric of the space
Martin refers to in “everyone being on
the equator”. Martin’s statement is,
specifically for the case of two
perpendicular plane rotations in such a
plain (as opposed to plane) 4D space (eg
xy and zw) with the SAME angular
frequency. When the metric changes it
gets (much) more complicated but also a
LOT more beautiful. The above argument
is for a normal 4D space. In terms of a
Clifford algebra it is Cl(4,0) (four
square to plus unity – none to minus
unity. Martin and I are using Cl(1,3)
one squares to plus (time), three square
to minus (space), metric (-+++).
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">Now
it is not so that, under rotations, you
need two different signs. Just using
rotations in the plane the x co-ordinate
oscillates a cos and the y as a sin.
Oscillations then (in the (++), Cl(2,0)
algebra – follow from rotations without
bothering with any “weirdness”.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">What
is new if one throws a “–“ into the mix
and this is where what Al says is partly
true (and what you may be remembering,
Al) - is that the fundamental
differential function (the exponential)
changes form and becomes oscillatory.
This is equivalent to saying that the
power function transformation (that
transforms multiplication to addition –
the log then) then gives oscillating
forms. It is this property I have used
to derive eq 21.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">This
may be seen most simply in ordinary
complex numbers, Cl (1,1) where the
exponential is either rising or falling
in Cl(1,0) or Cl(2,0), but the imaginary
part represents oscillations (e^i theta)
in complex space. It is not, though the
fact that one has different signs that
is important here, but the fact that one
has negative signs.</span><span
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">So
what does happen to (generalised)
rotations? What happens is that one has
some that go as ordinary sin and cos and
others that go as sinh and cosh. This
produces, not osciallations, but
transformations to and from motion at
the speed of light with a “quarter turn”
in space-time space (alpha 10).
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">There
you go.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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">Regards,
to all of you (and all of your erudite
mums!).</span><span 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">John.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="color:black"> </span></b><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2"
width="100%">
</span></div>
<div id="divRpF464108">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 25,
2015 1:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> John Williamson; Nature
of Light and Particles - General
Discussion; Nick Bailey;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>;
Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Aw: Re: [General]
Nature of charge</span><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"><br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Hi
All & Martin:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">Here
I'm going out on a limb a bit
(it's 43 years since I took a
course in algebraic topology!)
but I seem to remamber that
this is true if all dimentions
are equivalent, either there
is no metric at all (pure
topological space) or the
metric can be everywhere
diagonalized to the unit matix
(inner product/metric space).
However, if one of the
dimentions has a different
character (time---say, vice
space--->metric has a
nonunit factor in the diagonal
form, then rotations on 3d
submanifolds appear as
oscillations to 3d observers.
I can't say for certain that
this complication bears on the
issue at contest here, but it
seems very probable that it
could. Anyway, intuition is
worthless for d>3!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">For
what it's worth, Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;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
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"> Dienstag,
24. November 2015 um 19:23
Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Mark, Martin
van der" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "John
Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nature of
Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>,
"Nick Bailey" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>,
"David Williamson" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] Nature of charge<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">There
is atheirem that says
that on a 4d sphere, a
3-sphere, every one
lives on the equator,
which means that every
point is equivalent,
and has the same
rotation. No poles,
perfectly combable.<br>
<br>
Verstuurd vanaf mijn
iPhone<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="NL">Op 24 nov.
2015 om 07:15 heeft
John Williamson <</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk"><span
lang="NL">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"
lang="NL">> het
volgende geschreven:<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black">Hello
Chip and Richard,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black">I
had been meaning
to add to this
post for some
time, but did not
find a free moment
till now.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black">Will
comment below,
first on Chip’s
post, then on
Richard’s. This is
also relevant to
John Hodge's
recent post on the
nature of charge.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black">Feel
like going in red
this morning ….</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> of
comments from what
a model…</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Hi
Richard</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Correct
me if I am wrong
here. It seems
that there is not
a requirement that
the electron
actually be a
sphere, but only
that its
scattering
characteristics
are the same as
that of a sphere.
Do you think this
statement is
correct?</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Yes
and no. What is
known is that the
scattering is
sphere-like – in
that there is no
“structure
function” for the
electron. This
means, as I have
said many times
before, that the
scattering is
consistent with it
being a SINGLE
particle, with a
spherical –
inverse square law
of scattering.
</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Saying
the electron must
“be a sphere”
anyway begs the
question – what
kind of sphere? Is
it a 3-sphere in
3-space? A
four-sphere in 4D
space? A sphere in
the three
components of the
electric field (a
bivector space)?
Something more
complicated than
any of these?</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">I’m
afraid, ladies and
gentlemen, that
the answer is the
latter, though of
the three specific
static cases I
think the third
case comes
closest. The
electron, however,
is certainly not
static – it is
very very dynamic.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Chip</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
General [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>Richard
Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Thursday, November
19, 2015 7:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General Discussion
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick
Bailey <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>;
David Williamson
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>;
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Mark,
Martin van der
<<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General]
Reply of comments
from what a model…</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">Hello
John D and
Albrecht,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
We’re not quite
there by merely
replacing
Albrecht’s two
circulating
massless particles
by a
double-looping
photon. By doing
this the radius of
the circle drops
from hbar/mc to
hbar/2mc because
the total loop
length is still
one Compton
wavelength. A
double loop of
length 1 Compton
wavelength h/mc
has half the
radius of a single
loop and therefore
(if the
circulating photon
carries charge -e
moving at light
speed) half the
calculated
magnetic moment of
Albrecht’s model,
i.e. 1/2 Bohr
magneton. The loss
in magnetic moment
from Albrecht’s
2-particle model
has to be made up
in some other way.
But this
double-looping
photon model of
the electron has
spin 1/2 hbar
while Albrecht's
two-particle model
has spin 1 hbar.
No argument about
retarded
light-speed forces
between his 2
light-speed
circling massless
particles will
bring the total
spin of the
two-particle
system down to
exactly 1/2 hbar
while keeping its
magnetic moment at
1 Bohr magneton.
That would be like
pulling a magical
rabbit out of a
hat which so far
only Dirac with
his equation has
been able to do
successfully (he
wasn’t called a
magician for
nothing.) The
Williamson - van
der Mark 1997
electron model
comes close with
its proposed
centrally located
static electric
charge -e inferred
from their
twisting
double-looping
uncharged photon’s
inward pointing
electric fields at
the model’s
equator.
</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">The
WvdM model does
get the magic
rabbit right. Not
only that it gets
the QED first
order correction
to the magic
rabbit right
(about 1 part in a
thousand bigger) –
which the Dirac
model does not do.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">(But
what happened to
their
double-looping
photon's electric
field at and near
the model’s two
poles?) .
</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Richard,
you are still
thinking about a
little photon
bullet whizzing
around in 3-space
only. This is not
good enough. You
need to do what
you were accusing
Einstein of not
doing! Intuition,
insight and
imagination! </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">The
original 1997
paper already
explained the
transport around
the torus was not
in space but in
space-time. The
rotations are not
just in 3-space
but in a
higher-dimensional
space. In three
space one cannot
have,
simultaneously the
two axes of
“rotation” that
are needed for the
WvdM model. In
4-space one can.
This is the
“quantum bicycle”
I keep trying to
explain to you. A
4-spatial rotation
is still (in my
present view) too
simple, but
illustrates (one
of the) salient
points. Imagine a
space x y z w. Now
allow a rotation
in the xy plane,
with a
simultaneous
rotation in the zw
plane. Now let the
path traced by a
point (x y z w)
fill 4-space. Let
the length of this
path (x squared
plus y squared
plus z squared
plus w squared)
oscillate in phase
with “rotations”.
This is the
program I
implemented in the
little java applet
I circulated a few
months ago. What
does one observe
when one projects
this “motion” onto
3-space? You can
find lots of these
projections on the
web if you look.
It is kind of
difficult to do it
in your head – but
dead easy to
implement it in a
computer . Anyway,
in one kind of
projection one
observes a sphere,
in another a
torus. For such
flows, it is
perfectly possible
(even necessary)
to have a
spherical
projection for the
electric field,
while having a
toroidal form in a
projection onto
other spaces.
Thinking in just
3D space severely
limits ones
imagination!</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Now
the motion I’m
envisioning
nowadays is more
complicated than
merely
4-dimesional, as
there are far more
“planes” than just
the six in 4-D
space. The
electron rotation
has three rotation
planes (at least!)
Looking at the
photon solution
(eq 21) one
rotation is a
normal spatial
plane (xy), the
other in the
“plane” formed
from the scalar
and the
pseudoscalar. This
latter pair are
isomorphic to
complex numbers.
This means the
photon “twist” is
already in a
4-component space,
just not that of x
y z t, but that of
scalar,
pseudocalar,
electric and
magnetic field
“space”. Now to
get the electron
solution, one
takes that
already
“4-dimensional”
motion and lets it
loop again
“rotating” it in
yet another plane
in the even subset
(of eight!)
dimensions. The
resulting object
is rotating in (at
least) nine
“dimensions”
(eight modulated
by “time”). What
one observes is a
projection of
this. What is
required by
experiment is that
the interaction
part (the electric
field part) is
spherical, at
least if one does
not come within
touching distance
when direct field
interference kicks
in. At these
distances the
Pauli exclusion
principle kicks
in, as described
in my 2012 paper
at MENDEL.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">This
model can’t
convincingly
explain how a
sphere enclosing a
double-looping
uncharged photon
can have a
non-zero
divergence of its
electric field
(indicating a
non-zero enclosed
electric charge)
without violating
Gauss’ law (the
first Maxwell
equation).
</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">This
is only true if
you take the
electron to be
constituted a
massless photon
(as you do). Let
me try, once
again, to convince
you.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Look
at Gauss’s law in
the full set of
equations in my
paper. This is
equation 6. There
is another term,
as well as the
electric field
divergence (which
is the DEFINITION
of “charge”)
corresponding to
root-mass
exchange. This is
the nature of
charge in QED. The
electric field
divergence, in the
new equations, is
non zero if there
is mass-energy
exchange. That is
(part of) the root
of charge. It is
not the whole
story – as photon
exchange needs ALL
eight (well at
least seven) of
the even terms to
explain it
properly. It does
mean that Gauss’s
law needs to be
extended by
allowing for
mass-energy
exchange though.
This is anyway the
case, if you think
about it, in both
QED and the
inhomogenous
Maxwell equations
(where,in both,
you put in the
“charge by hand!).</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Given
the state- of play
of Martin and my
model in 2015
there are now two
ways to calculate
the charge in the
resulting model.
The first is to
use the curvature,
and the calculated
electric field, to
get the charge in
terms of Plancks’
constant (or vice
versa). This is
what Martin and I
did in out 1997
paper. The other
way is to
integrate the
cross-section of
charge-charge
interactions over
the universe –
which requires a
knowledge of the
number of charges
in the universe
and their
distribution. This
is harder. Both
give values for
the elementary
charge within the
right ballpark,
however.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">I
think that in
order to retain a
viable
double-looping
photon model of
the electron, one
may have to bite
the bullet and
accept that the
circulating
double-looping
photon is itself
electrically
charged and also
has a rest mass of
0.511 MeV/c^2 and
a spin of 1/2
hbar.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Absolutely
not! You cannot
claim to get
charge out if you
put it in! Also –
I have said this
before and will
not change my mind
– you cannot put
it in and stay
with a massless
photon. You just
can’t Do the
maths! Integrate
the mass-energy in
any one frame due
to the charge
alone and you will
get a non-zero
mass. This mass
will be minimal
where the field is
radial – and will
increase for any
other frame. End
of story. You can
SAY you have a
“charged massless
photon”– but this
does not make it
consistent with
reality! Sorry!<a
moz-do-not-send="true" name="_GoBack"></a>
</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">You
can say (and be
right) that you
have a charged
electron with rest
mass (if this is
what you mean) –
but this is just
what we have all
been saying all
along – so what is
the difference?</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
By the way,
Albrecht’s two
circulating
particles may each
have no rest mass
as he describes,
but they certainly
each carry 1/2 of
0.511 MeV of a
resting electron's
total energy. This
strongly implies
that they are two
circulating
photons (or
gluons?) each
having energy 1/2
x 0.511 MeV. This
also gives his
electron model a
spin of 1 hbar.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black"> </span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
with best
regards,</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:black">
Richard</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times",serif;color:red">Regards,
from John.</span><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr align="center"
size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray">The
information contained in
this message may be
confidential and legally
protected under
applicable law. The
message is intended
solely for the
addressee(s). If you are
not the intended
recipient, you are
hereby notified that any
use, forwarding,
dissemination, or
reproduction of this
message is strictly
prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you are not
the intended recipient,
please contact the
sender by return e-mail
and destroy all copies
of the original message.</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to
receive communication
from the Nature of Light
and Particles General
Discussion List at
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>