Bob- I agree with your assessment. As I stated yesterday in response to Eric, I think Hatt’s theory is consistent with reality, particularly with respect to its predictions of measurable parameters. Your note about Hotson considerations fits in to the Hatt theory as you note.
My previous comments follow: I think the 1/2 and –1/2 spin comes into play when a vector quantity is associated with the spin and the related angular momentum. In addition a preferred direction is implied with respect to the direction of the magnetic moment inherent in the spin designation. I think it all falls out to be –1/2 and +1/2 from the Dirac equations to make sense. I think that classical electricity and magnetism per Maxwell does not address the issue of spin and how it relates to charge on an electron. In the classical case I think your idea of assigning a basic unit associated with an electron charge would make no difference. It would only change the quantity of electrons making up a coulomb of charge, which quantity is associated with volts and amps and their definition. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 8:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: The vacuum is the glue that keeps the universe together. The concept of the fractional charge quarks as constituents of matter is a completely made-up story/hypothesis. Has anyone ever measured an elementary particle with a charge other than an integer multiple of e? Hotson proposes that because of this the electron IS the one and only fundamental particle. All other particles are comprised of electrons and the electron's out-of-phase alias, the positron (still an electron). This is very similar to Hatt's theory (still being read). Personally, I think they got charge numbering correct. There are no 1/3 and 2/3 charge quarks - their existence is a mathematical artifice to try to explain behavior. Just like the vector magnetic potential - it is an artificial mathematical derivation that is useful for equation solving. On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Stephen Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: Interesting ideas and points about the numbering system. I wonder what would be the best most meaningful fundamental numbering system to use. With spin at least I suppose the current numbering system has the advantage of easily distinguishing fermions and Bosons. And gives insights for fermion behavior such as couper pairs and atomic nucleus structure and stability. I suppose maybe the current numbering system is quite appropriate at simple for normal sub atomic and simple nuclear structure considerations, but when going deeper into sub nucleon behavior and perhaps more subtle sub nucleon and inter nucleon effects then maybe applying this way of thinking is limiting our understanding of the more dynamic and transient behaviors occurring and another numbering system is more appropriate? Getting back to the current Numbering view point. Regarding the charge fractions I can't help wondering (as I suppose many have before) if the value of 3 in the fractional charge and also the quark pairs and lepton flavors comes from or is related to orientation in the local space dimension in their frame of reference in someway. It seems a strange coincidence that we have 3 aspects in these fermion characteristics and also 3 dimensions. But I suppose with spin considerations and flavor oscillations etc it is not so simple. Are there any theoretical approaches that look at fundamental particles in local space dimensions in this way? On 15 Nov 2015, at 23:56, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: The question is whether the fractional charge that is associated with some quarks actually exists as a separate entity in nature? Instead of fractional charge, it's possible the "1/3," "2/3," etc., are an artifact of our numbering system. That is to say, it might make more sense to think of the charges of quarks as being "1" or "2," and the charges of electrons and protons as being "3". There is a similar question about the amount of spin: we say that an electron has a spin of 1/2 and a photon of spin 1, but is that just a result of the starting point for a numbering system, which would make it too hard at this point to reindex the spins so that an electron is said instead to have a spin of 1 and a photon a spin of 2? Eric
