<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css"></style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 18 0 131231 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520082689 -1073717157 41 0 66047 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS ??";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:
EN-GB">Dear Al,<br>
<br>
What would be "clumsy" for a local particle, would be to have to conform to some universal external "grid". Klickety klack!<br>
<br>
Comments below ...</span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
A. F. Kracklauer [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 27, 2015 9:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mark, Martin van der; John Williamson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey; pete@leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><span style="font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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.
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Not so - for an inter-action one is, of course, referring to the interaction with the rest of the universe - and this part needs
to be understood. This goes back to the "interaction with the observer" and causality arguments earlier - and for which I had considered writing a paper for SPIE. I think, from experience, the discussion will absorb far too much energy to have any hope of
making progress in this forum.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Having said this the absolute most forward point in time for any given particle is, clearly, its present time,
everything else is “ago”. The rest of the universe may be going to react back, but it has not done so yet. It may have done so “already” but that is another matter.<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Yes - individual particles are not very smart (I hope! Otherwise they will be having a good laugh at all this)
and have enough trouble referring to their own frame. Getting the interaction with just one other frame is a very interesting problem, which I have talked about before. Understanding this one though is key: one to begin with, two the next step. After two:
many.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
<br style="mso-special-character:line-break">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Obviously: if a-b is positive b-a is negative. So what? The difficulty does not lie in the mere notation of position,
but in the symmetry and the nature of division. This is much more complicated!<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><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!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Agreed! Deriving the nature of time in terms of space or space in terms of time is, indeed, a worthy goal. As I
have said in earlier posts – it is anyway not time or space one needs to understand – but their inversions – as these are more fundamental. Hope Martin and I can get the division paper out soon.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">
<font color="0000FF">Now I hope, of course, that this level of understanding has been enough to properly describe the nature of the photon and electron - as in my two SPIE papers. Again, experience shows that this may not yet be the whole story!</font><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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">I think this modelling of dynamics is the wrong approach – though that which is has been most widely followed.
It presumes the experimenters system a-priori. This is usually Cartesian and grid-oriented. Big mistake! It leads to a lot of “loco” arguments. I think one needs to understand how the rest of the universe looks from the point of view of the inter-actors themselves.
These things are spinning rather rapidly in multiple dimensions. This makes it a bit hard for the poor little things (even if very very smart) to keep track of all the x’s y’s and z’s (or whatevers). I think the prime dimensional direction has to be outward
and inward. The prime reference for this scale, for the particle, is the particle size and the particle clock. Everything else has just been made up by objects in that big, bad universe outside. KISS.</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
For what it's worth, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:#3366FF;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB">Cheers, -John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></b></p>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27.11.2015 10:16, Mark, Martin van der wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria}
@font-face
{font-family:Times}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline}
p
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif}
span.emailstyle20
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}BODY {scrollbar-base-color:undefined;scrollbar-highlight-color:undefined;scrollbar-darkshadow-color:undefined;scrollbar-track-color:undefined;scrollbar-arrow-color:undefined}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Yes John,</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.</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.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D">Regards, Martin
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </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="" lang="DE"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:navy"> </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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; color:#1F497D"> </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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>; Nick Bailey <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_blank">
<nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">
pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Ariane Mandray <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">
<ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a>; David Williamson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">
<david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a>; Mark, Martin van der <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>; Nick Bailey; <a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">
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"></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.:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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.]</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">Best, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">
</span></p>
<div name="quote" 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">
<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 href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>" <<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>, "<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nick Bailey" <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>,
"Ariane Mandray" <<a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>, "David Williamson" <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge</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
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">“if all dimentions are equivalent”</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">There you go.</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">Regards, to all of you (and all of your erudite mums!).</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">John.</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black"> </span></b><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif; color:black">
</span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="">
<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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Nick Bailey;
<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Aw: Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><span style=""><br>
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </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:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">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!</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">For what it's worth, Al</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">
</span></p>
<div style="border:none; border-left:solid
#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 href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "Nick Bailey" <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Ariane Mandray" <<a href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>,
"David Williamson" <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Nature of charge</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</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 href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank"><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>
</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="">Hello Chip and Richard,</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=""> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="">Feel like going in red this morning ….</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=""> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">Hi Richard</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></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"></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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black">Chip</span><span style="color:black"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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 href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; David Williamson <<a href="mailto:david.williamson@ed.ac.uk" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>;
<a href="mailto:pete@leathergoth.com" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="mailto:martin.van.der.mark@philips.com" target="_blank">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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></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 name="_GoBack"></a>
</span><span style="color:black"></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"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> </span><span style="color:black"></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"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times",serif; color:black"> Richard</span><span style="color:black"></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"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif; color:black">
</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 href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">
Click here to unsubscribe </a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>