<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style id="owaParaStyle" type="text/css">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
</head>
<body ocsi="0" fpstyle="1">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">Hello Al,<br>
<br>
One thing I meant to ask ...<br>
<br>
This may seem a bit facetious but it is not .. notation matters to make connections (or break them!).<br>
<br>
What notation would you like for the Clifford Algebra part? In the past I have used "e" s (usual Clifford textbook notation) and "\gamma" s (for the Clifford Dirac connection). It is pretty simple to do a global change to the "\alpha" s I have been using. I
could easily produce a custom version in any other convenient notation.<br>
<br>
Regards, John.<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div style="direction: ltr;" id="divRpF508448"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 29, 2015 3:56 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der; general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey; pete@leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: RE: [General] Nature of charge<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><style>
<!--
@font-face
{font-family:"MS ??"}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math"}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria}
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
@page WordSection1
{margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b style=""><span lang="EN-US">Hoi Al,</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b style=""><span lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">Hoi is (one way of saying) hi in Dutch … also for fun</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">Now your email contains some useful (implied) criticism. I appreciate it. You can be more direct if you like – I would appreciate that too.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">Hay John:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">"Hay" is "Hi" in Swensk---for the fun of it!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">Actually, my view is that, given the current state of play in Physics, namely, there is NO even marginally recognized formulation of self-consistent, mutually coupled, relativistic (SR)
formuation of interaction for just classical electrons/protons, the first priority should be perhaps sorting this out. All we have are approximations for small objects (satellites) reacting to large objects which are unaffected by the interactor.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Agreed. This is exactly what I am trying to do – and have been trying to do (with Martin) for a couple of decades.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">Formal logic gives no reason for optimism regading "explaining" the electron, photon, positron, etc. To do so requires---per formal logic---copious empirical info on their constutents,
which then themselves remain unexplained! As a philospher from Oxford once said to an audience I was in: "It's turtles all the way down"!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">I like this analogy – and is again what most folk think. Sometimes, as in Albrechts model for example, the turtles even seem to double (or even triple in the quark model!)
as they go. It need not, however, be the case. If one can think of a way of describing the turtles in more fundamental form – and then show that this is consistent both with turtle-ness at a higher level – but also with much of the otherwise unexplained (elephants
– for example) one is making progress. More specifically there should come a level where there are no “constituents” but just the pure beauty of the fundamental form, whatever that is.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">In the mean time, I look forward to seeing your story in conventional Clifford-algebra notation (so as to be able to reconcile your results with what appears to me to be correctly established
maths). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Now this is where it gets really interesting for me (and contains the implied criticism!). Here is the thing.
<span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span>When Martin and I have claimed the algebra we are using is a real Dirac algebra we have had some pedant of a referee comment that it is not a Dirac algebra, as Dirac algebras are complex. Not too hard to spot as
that is exactly what we said in the introduction. On the other hand when we have tried to argue that it is a Clifford algebra with an extension – I have had another (or maybe the same!) pedant referee comment that it is not because it contains two kinds of
unit element. Again not too hard to spot as that is exactly what I said in the introduction. In fact it sits somewhere between a Clifford algebra (Cl1,3) and a Dirac algebra (the closest is one of the Dirac gamma algebras, but with no gamma5). Now this is
what I have tried to say in my new introduction but another pedant (you!) has complained that it is not a standard Clifford notation. I know. You know, the bottom line is that, sometimes, one needs to do new stuff. Otherwise well, one would do nothing new!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">The maths in the paper is 16/17<sup>th</sup> pure normal Clifford algebra. It is useful to remember, though, that the Clifford stuff itself is anyway thought by most physicists
to be way out on a weird limb. The general Clifford community, however, have managed to convince themselves that certain projections are necessary. This most insidious of these is the “space-time split”, introduced by Gull, Lazenby et al. Essentially they
force the bivectors to,simultaneously, have a vector property – mostly (Lounesto argues this) because they view the electric field as a vector (and not a bi-vector ) quantity. If one does this, one loses the possibility of doing anything new since one has
forced ones quantum bicycle into having all the power, speed and manoeuvrability of a hobby-horse. Again – I have had another pedant of a referee complain that I do not do this “properly”. I am making a little file of referee comments, for general amusement
if I ever get to give a Nobel lecture (not likely!).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">For those of you (I guess most of you) not familiar with what these things are I will summarise. A Clifford algebra is a vector algebra defined so that products of its unit
(vector) elements square to (the number) plus or minus 1. An example is Cl(1,1), with one element squaring to plus one and one to minus one. This is just the ordinary algebra of complex numbers- a Clifford algebra. For more complex Clifford algebras (such
as Cl(1,3) – where three (spatial) vector elements square to negative unity) the space-time algebra championed by Hestenes) this means that any derived unit areas, volumes and so on also square to either plus or minus 1.
<span style=""></span>Grassmann algebras, in contrast, force vector products to square to zero. There you go. Want more you will have to read a big book.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">In my algebra, 15 of the “alphas” are all just exactly the elements of the normal (right handed) Clifford algebra Cl(1,3). The only difference with the conventional Clifford
algebra in the big books is that I do not let the products of vector elements ever multiply to the number “1” but to either elements representing physical planes (if perpendicular) or to a physical element representing a unit point element (alpha p). This
has the vital property – taken from Minkowski algebras - that the product of the vector elements (and therefore any of the other elements) is a Lorentz scalar invariant. I then introduce real numbers as well – so the algebra is (one version of) Reals cross
Cl(1,3). Why do I say “one version of” because, even for Cl(1,3) there is, logically more than one version. Why? Because one can start with a right-handed or a left-handed set of vectors to begin with and, although I have not found this extension in any Clifford
texts or papers yet, this has consequences. In fact there are quite a few of these. If one takes the order for the four superimposed 3-spaces as vector, space-space bi-vector, space-time bi-vector, tri-vector then the one I’m using is Cl(1,3) (right, right,
left, right). The one I am proposing is Cl(1,3) (left, left, left, left). Not all combinations are possible as it turns out that the space-time bivector is always left – whatever you do.<span style="">
</span><span style=""> </span>If any of you out there are maths-nerds or computer-science-nerds how about thinking about writing a you- Williamson or you-Martin-Williamson paper about it? I will help! You need to be warned though. It takes Martin (who is good
at it!) several days to go through one iteration by hand. A good computer program should only take a few milliseconds though!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">I am starting from a right-handed set, because this is what is in all the textbooks and all the papers. I do this because, as Al says, I have already introduced so much new
stuff that it is already very hard for the poor referees to understand it at all (at all). Nature, however, is handed. I think (secretly) that it is left-handed. Now, if the new theory does turn out to be that seminal theory describing all light and material
particles (as I do, secretly) and later generations come to study it, some scholar will point out that Williamson was wrong to think it was right and left the proper possibility that it was left unexplored. I do hope they (or another even more erudite follower)
then finds this email! If this is you, dear future researcher, regards to you from me!</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Coming back to the case in hand, the sub-algebra of the alphas is then isomorphic to the (usual) Clifford algebra Cl(1,3) where the unit element is taken to be just the number
1. Having made this identification, to generate my algebra from Clifford-Dirac one needs a seventeenth degree of freedom– which can be described just by a real number. The simplest extension to this would be to extend to an eighteenth degree of freedom – and
allow a complex pre-factor (I do not do this). <span style=""> </span>This 18-degree-of freedom system is, essentially, what Dirac himself used, what many others have used since – and also where, in my view, he (and all of them) went wrong. Again, for those
not familiar with Dirac algebras, there are a very large (but finite) number of Dirac algebras. The algebra I use IS a Dirac algebra (it obeys all the Dirac commutation relations), but it is NOT complex – there is no scalar unit imaginary.<span style="">
</span>This does not, for me, fully describe the underlying algebra of reality (as the handedness has not yet been fixed), but it starts to come close.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">For me what Clifford is (and always was) missing in order to make a proper attempt to describing the proper nature of reality is a distinction between the reals and the scalar
Clifford unity. The handedness is a vital future point – but not the main problem.<a name="_GoBack"></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Anyway Al a question: do you think putting precisely an explanation like this (aimed at our erudite mothers!) in the “maths” section would be enough to do the trick? At least
for you?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">It's no surprise to me that, you'r having challenges getting published; too many new techiniques, terms, ideas in one bite make it a horrendus task for editors, referees to do a conscincious
evaluation [which they quite often don't do for group-think reasons anyway!].</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Thank you. It had mystified me why I’m having problems at all with explaining something that seems to me, fairly simple, and pretty well-defined. The discussion over the
last few months has opened my eyes to the fact that, for most people –even serious physicists, this is just not simple at all.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana">ciao, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana; color:#3366FF">Regards, John.</span>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF699064" style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" color="#000000" size="2"><b>From:</b> af.kracklauer@web.de [af.kracklauer@web.de]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, November 28, 2015 8:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> John Williamson<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der; general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Nick Bailey; pete@leathergoth.com; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Aw: RE: [General] Nature of charge<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Verdana; font-size:12.0px">
<div>
<div>Hay John:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Hay" is "Hi" in Swensk---for the fun of it!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually, my view is that, given the current state of play in Physics, namely, there is NO even marginally recognized formulation of self-consistent, mutually coupled, relativistic (SR) formuation of interaction for just classical electrons/protons, the
first priority should be perhaps sorting this out. All we have are approximations for small objects (satellites) reacting to large objects which are unaffected by the interactor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Formal logic gives no reason for optimism regading "explaining" the electron, photon, positron, etc. To do so requires---per formal logic---copious empirical info on their constutents, which then themselves remain unexplained! As a philospher from Oxford
once said to an audience I was in: "It's turtles all the way down"!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In the mean time, I look forward to seeing your story in conventional Clifford-algebra notation (so as to be able to reconcile your results with what appears to me to be correctly established maths). It's no surprise to me that, you'r having challenges
getting published; too many new techiniques, terms, ideas in one bite make it a horrendus task for editors, referees to do a conscincious evaluation [which they quite often don't do for group-think reasons anyway!].</div>
<div> </div>
<div>ciao, 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">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Samstag, 28. November 2015 um 07:34 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk><br>
<b>An:</b> "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kracklauer@web.de>, "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "Nick Bailey" <nick@bailey-family.org.uk>, "pete@leathergoth.com" <pete@leathergoth.com>, "Ariane Mandray" <ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr>, "David Williamson"
<david.williamson@ed.ac.uk><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: [General] Nature of charge</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:10.0pt">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0.0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria}
*.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:Cambria}
-->
</style>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times">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">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma; color:black"> 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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">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.
</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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"; color:rgb(51,102,255)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">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"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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.</span><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">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"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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!</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">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"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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"; color:black">
<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"; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:rgb(51,102,255)">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><br>
<br>
<span style="font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:black">For what it's worth, Al</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times; color:rgb(51,102,255)">Cheers, -John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span> </span></b></p>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:rgb(0,0,0); font-size:16.0px">
<div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27.11.2015 10:16, Mark, Martin van der wrote:</div>
<blockquote><style type="text/css">
<!--
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0.0cm;
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:0.0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman" ,serif}
span.emailstyle20
{color:black}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif;
color:rgb(31,73,125)}
*.MsoChpDefault
{font-size:10.0pt}
body
{direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma;
color:rgb(0,0,0);
font-size:10.0pt}
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
body
{direction:ltr;
font-family:Tahoma;
color:#000000;
font-size:10pt}
p
{margin-top:0;
margin-bottom:0}
-->
BODY {direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)">Yes John,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)">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:rgb(31,73,125)">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:rgb(31,73,125)">Regards, Martin
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial ,sans-serif; color:navy">Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial ,sans-serif; color:navy">Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial ,sans-serif; color:navy">Prof. Holstlaan 4</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial ,sans-serif; color:navy">5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Arial ,sans-serif; color:navy">Tel: +31 40 2747548</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri ,sans-serif; color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none; border-top:solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt; padding:3.0pt 0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm">
<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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>; Nick Bailey <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
<nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Ariane Mandray <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
<ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a>; David Williamson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">
<david.williamson@ed.ac.uk></a>; Mark, Martin van der <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>; Nick Bailey;
<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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></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 style="border:none; border-left:solid rgb(195,217,229) 1.5pt; padding:0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 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"> Donnerstag, 26. November 2015 um 13:36 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>>, "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>"
<<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nick Bailey" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Ariane
Mandray" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>, "David Williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>, "Mark, Martin van der" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> RE: Re: [General] Nature of charge</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif; color:black">John.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black"> </span></b></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">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, November 25, 2015 1:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> John Williamson; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Nick Bailey;
<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Ariane Mandray; David Williamson<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Aw: Re: [General] Nature of charge</span><br>
<span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </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 rgb(195,217,229) 1.5pt; padding:0.0cm 0.0cm 0.0cm 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>>, "Nick Bailey" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>"
<<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>>, "Ariane Mandray" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr</a>>, "David Williamson" <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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"><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif; color:black">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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank"><span>John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</span></a></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif; color:black">>
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>Hello Chip and Richard,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span>I had been meaning to add to this post for some time, but did not find a free moment till now.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span>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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span>Feel like going in red this morning ….</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span> </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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black">Hi Richard</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-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></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></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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black">Chip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>; David Williamson <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">david.williamson@ed.ac.uk</a>>;
<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">pete@leathergoth.com</a>; Mark, Martin van der <<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" target="_blank">martin.van.der.mark@philips.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</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-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black">Hello John D and Albrecht,</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-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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; 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></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></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></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; 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></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></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></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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black"> with best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:black"> Richard</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Times ,serif; color:red">Regards, from John.</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">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</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><br>
<span style="font-size:9.0pt; font-family:Verdana ,sans-serif; color:black">_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a href="UrlBlockedError.aspx" 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>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>