[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Thu Jul 2 16:11:44 PDT 2015

Hi Martin,
   Thanks for sending an advance draft of your first paper. I have a few comments:

1) Near the end of the paper (p.10), referring to quarks in the proton you say “We have already concluded that they can only fit within the proton if moving very fast, and that may be true for their De Broglie wavelength and orbital motion, but what about their own size, their Compton wavelength size? Too light, hence too big, and the proton would have to be a hundred times larger than it is."  But the radius of the quark would also decrease with its speed, probably as 1/gamma, just as the electron does as seen in high energy electron scattering experiments. If the quark's speed is 0.999c as you say, this gives a gamma of about 22.4. Quark masses in a proton are on average 3MeV each or 6 times the electron mass, so the Compton double-loop radius Rq of a resting quark, inversely proportional to the quark’s mass, would be 1/6 that of the electron’s characteristic size Ro=1.9 x 10^-13m, i.e.  Rq= (1.9 x 10^-13) / 6 or about 30 x 10^-15 m for a resting quark. And for a speeding quark, R= Rq/gamma = 1.3 x 10^-15 m— nearly the proton size, so a high speed quark could probably fit (with a somewhat higher quark velocity than 0.999c, say 0.9995c with gamma=32) comfortably inside a proton.

2) On the top of page 4 you write “  Historically, in 1913, the quantization using De Broglie waves was the answer to Bohr’s postulated stability of electron orbits in his model of the Hydrogen atom." De Broglie gave his integer Bohr orbit de Broglie wavelength calculations in a journal article I believe in 1923 and again in his thesis in 1924.

3) You say on p 7 last paragraph, that the kinetic energy in a hydrogen atom is shared equally between the proton and the electron. This is I think mistaken. Their momenta and de Broglie wavelengths are equal, but the electron will have much more of the total KE  based on KE = 1/2 mv^2 .

Also there is a typo above equation 5 on page 7:  “where" not “were"

     best regards,
         Richard

> On Jul 2, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
> 
> David,
> As promised, my paper. This is the philosophical one.
> Protons and electrons are built from a continuous light-speed circulation of energy. That energy must take part in at least the electromagnetic interaction. Perhaps it is just  knotted light? In any case, quarks, gluons, strings, super-symmetrical particles, Planck-scale physics: all bullshit…well not entirely; the quark symmetry is there and should be there.
>  
> The other one paper is pure mathematics and it shows how Maxwell’s equation support topological solutions (knots of fields) that may be charged, and how the knots are behaving as quantum mechanical objects (the knots are also solutions to the Dirac or Klein-Gordon equation), I am in the process of drafting the text around it. A non-linear condition makes that the solutions must also obey a null-condition (invariant, being a proper spinor). All that together with the winding numbers of the knots should give enough conditions to select out only a minor number of possibilities to survive…haven’t proven that yet.
> I will sent this second one in a few weeks time… actually it should be ready in two…
> Cheers, Martin
>  
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>  
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
> 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of David Mathes
> Sent: donderdag 2 juli 2015 2:59
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> Subject: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
>  
>  
>  
> All, 
>  
> As I look at all these different models of the electron, we have all carefully grasped the elephant somewhere on the outside in an attempt to figure out what's on the inside. In our quest to determine the heart of the electron, we have compared present day notes in hopes of future results. So any description of the elephant called electron can be reduced to a series of experimental results that already exist and a limits can be placed to confine any model to reasonableness.
>  
> Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the fairest...oh, forget that. What I want to know...what does the future hold for quantum and quanta and is there at least a roadmap in physics.
> Specifically, what does the future hold in terms of photon models and photon-based electrons? 
>  
> That is a question open to interpretation but Wilczek at least provides a framework with a few directions in his paper published in March 2015.Summarized in a brief article on PBS website, Wilczek came out with a rather bold paper on musings and wishes available on Arxiv.
>  
> A quick article from PBS...from
> How Physics Will Change—and Change the World—in 100 Years — NOVA Next | PBS <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/in-100-years/>
>  
> The full paper....
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735.pdf <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.07735.pdf>
>  
> The paper was a fun read in spite of the physics and mathematics involved. Here is one of my favorite quotes:
>  
> "When Leon Cooper, on behalf of Brown University, asked me to contribute to their 250th anniversary by giving a talk 
> about the next 250 years of physics, I of course accepted immediately. Then I thought about it. I soon realized that 
> I’d taken on a task that is way beyond me, or (I suspect) anyone else.  So as a first step I renormalized 250 → 100."
>  
> "Here I indulge in wide-ranging speculations on the shape of physics, and technology closely related to physics, over the next one hundred years. 
> Themes include the many faces of unification, the reimagining of quantum theory, and new forms of engineering on small, intermediate, and large scales."
>  
> My take is that given the rapid advances in quantum computing, and Kurzweil's pending Singularity, we should  consider the Wilczek paper a roadmap good for at least 20 years. We should also consider this paper somewhat as guidance to modeling photon and electron.
>  
> Before looking forward, Wilczek summarizes the history of physics and mathematics where there has been unification. In the computer industry including Apple, HP, IBM and Microsoft, unification is also called integration. And in finance, mergers and acquisitions. But I digress.
>  
> From history, Wilczek provide a summary of unification in specific fields. I'm sure there are others but these will do.
>  
> "Names are attached not as credit but a shorthand for developments:
>  
> – Unification of algebra and geometry (Descartes)
> – Unification of celestial and terrestrial physics (Galileo, Newton) – Unification of mechanics and optics (Hamilton)
> – Unification of electricity, magnetism, and optics (Maxwell)
> – Unification of space and time (Einstein, Minkowski)
> – Unification of wave and particle (Einstein, de Broglie) 
> – Unification of reasoning and calculation (Boole, Turing) 
>  
> end"
>  
> So he continues on the theme of unification with the Standard Model and eventually leads us into Supersymmetry (SUSY). 
>  
> "For reasons I’ve detailed in an Appendix, I think the most sensible procedure is to use “Standard Model” in its original sense, to mean the electroweak theory only. "
>  
> That's interesting since most of the electron models don't even mention electroweak and prefer classical or semi-classical form of EM. However, there are couple models that have the guts to go GUT and encompass the four basic forces (or five if one treats the B field separate from E) as well as declare there is a bottom, and it is spacetime. As background, note that the Standard Model can typically be summarized using symmetry groups as 
>  
> SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × SO(3,1)
>  
> Keep in mind that Barrett using the appropriate extensions to Maxwell's equations (Maxwell 20)  confines his "Topological Electromagnistim" to
>  
> EM only ... SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)
> 
>  
> Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism 
> http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf <http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp055.pdf>
> 
>  
> I have two noteworthy additions to the SM.  Electrons can be spin coupled, and there is the question of phat photons, So I've wondered if the proper investigative path might be
>  
> N^2 hv == SU(4) X SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) × SO(3,1)
>  
> Any comment or correction on this view may be of help. And yes, I have seen the equations of the universe.
>  
> From Sean Carroll
> The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/>
>  
>  
>  <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/>	
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/>
> Longtime readers know I feel strongly that it should be more widely appreciated that the laws underlying the physics of everyday life are completely understood. (If...
> View on www.preposterousuni... <http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/>	
> Preview by Yahoo
>  
>  
> So as I look at the various models for this SPIE conference, I wonder what is the next unification?
>  
> Could Unification of the photon and electron be next?
>  
> Perhaps a topological description of inside the electron? Or could it be the unification of spacetime and waves that provides the key insight and breakthrough? 
>  
> Could it be we need to rethink how we think about things, and perhaps relearn a new way on how we learn how to learn? 
> 
> 
> And what is inside the photon?
>  
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> David
>  
> 
> 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.
> <SPIE O+P 2015 substance_paper_v15.pdf>_______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150702/606593e0/attachment.htm>