[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek and David: stripped with comments

[John Williamson]

Time to go beyond Z, or at least Q, C and D!

Answers and comments ...
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of David Mathes [davidmathes8 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:38 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Richard et all

Yes, Wilczek takes a QCD approach in his SM treatment. While he appears myopic, his pragmatism is basically...take the next step to electroweak, strong force is different and gravity is a pain. And yet, he also takes the approach that SUSY is the strongest path to a GUT feeling.

Yep, Wilkzek is a good man, and SUSY has long had a lot of hungry followers wanting to fill their GUT's with a good meal - when there has never been so much as a salad in sight!

I consider rest mass to be a special case of energy in a specific frame of reference yet influence by the mass-energy of the universe, a Machian view that Einstein abandoned. For mass, scale factors can be used for gravitational, inertia, and quantum mass as well as other types.

Fundamentally right! I would not say "in" a specific frame of reference though, but rather "bound to a specific frame of reference" or "pinned to a specific frame of reference" or "confined to a specific frame of reference". Perhaps better than any of these is "localised in a specific frame of reference"

So,  what does the next 100 years hold? Here is a wish list...with good intentions and specific to physics, but not as well thought out...not necessarily directly related to the photon, but related as influencing a massless particle traveling light-like velocity.

Hihi. The right answer is "mu" of course. Unask the question, but nonetheless ...

1. Model of the electron internals especially parametric, Model of the photon internals especially parametric

Yes, maybe, at first. Long term though - no. Lets go for proper holomorphic, analytic solutions to a proper full-blown theory. Why settle for less?

2. Back reaction on pilot field understood

This is a big question ... and one which I was going to devote to a paper here, but did not have the time. Briefly, I think it is easy to understand the "back reaction" of you think symmetrically both beyond (tachyonic) and before (subluminal) the speed of light. You need to think very very carefully about just what you mean by "back".  Especially about "backwards" and "forwards" in time. This is what Carver Mead's keynote talk was on at the conference two years ago - though he did not go far enough in explaining it in my view. You need to get causality right!

3. Model of the transluminal quanta and states thereof - change the conditions while preserving the c of GR?

The "transluminality" is already there. Proper, massive, relativistic wave-functions must always contain both subluminal and superluminal components.

4. Model of proton and neutron - QCD

Yes, but QCD is far too simple. Further, it is non-perturbative. This means, if you are optimistic, that you can calculate anything with it, and if pessimistic that nothing can be calculated with it. Both points of view are true!

5. Quanta layer (below elementary particle layer) or
what's smaller than a photon but within GR?

As I keep saying: you do not want to put quantisation in. You want to get quantisation out!

6. Negative vacuum engineering of the region. What is between zero vacuum and void. (define void)

David - you also need to define what you mean by "negative vacuum". Do you mean negative energy density? What is the (dimensional) form of negative vacuum you mean? do you mean inverting space and time? (leading to Penrose twistor like solutions). This is just too vague!

7. CPT violations resolved especially asymmetric B-meson byproducts of e-e+

There are, to my knowledge, no CPT violations. Only CP and PT violations. Anyone know any different?

8.  Equations resolving particle-wave, perhaps a single equation

This is exactly what I'm trying to do with my new photon wave-function! It is a wave, with fixed angular momentum, but any energy. It is a solution to the ordinary Maxwell equation. Is this not good enough?

9. Gravity and QFT unified

Next conference

10. SUSY predictions come true (Wilczek)

I do not think so. Even if SUSY did happen you would still be left with a spastic hamburger of a theory. Besides the are already loads of predictions that are simply not so experimentally. Forget about it.

11. Mastering gravity physics like EM - field shielding, directional field control, push gravity (repulsion, dark energy)
"Where is push gravity?" (see dark energy aka non-interactive with photons)

I think I know how to do this. Gravity is a derivative of electromagnetism. Understand this and you can shield it - in principle. Engineering it may take a little while but it can, and will, be done. This may take a decade or two.

12. Spacetime control fundamentals - can be curved and rotated (Woodward)

Why bother? Leave the poor space and time alone. Let it do the work for you.

13. Renormalization not necessary

Dirac showed how to do this for EM in editions of is "quantum mechanics" earlier than the fourth. All you need is a fundamental cut-off at lambdac/4pi.

14. Negative physics creates negative vacuum, mass, energy and time

No. Not negative mass. Not so far, experimentally, at any rate. Negative time, by itself, just gives positive mass (and positive space - as opposed to the more usual negative space of our everyday experience). Negative energy is already built-in in gravitational inter-actions. This leads to a total energy of the universe of just about (and probably exactly) zero. See Feynmann. A dutch guy was first, but his name escapes me temporarily - Martin will fill me in.

15. Multiverse Medium - the spacetime between universes is explored and explained

No multiverses. They do not conserve energy. Silly idea with far too much currency (in my view).

16. Discovery of additional fundamental forces (Bushman's eight?)

Got too many already. Would you settle for just one? Perhaps fragmented by space and time into sixteen components. I'll put the equations into one of my coming drafts.

17. Phat, spin-controlled, conditioned, charged photons

Right!

18. Spooky action-at-a-distance explained

Everything must be local and causal. Local and causal in each and every relativistic frame. Simultaneously. Not understanding how this can be so is just down to a lack of imagination!

19. Scalable event horizon using fluid dynamic modeling (non-quantized)

I do not understand this. Tell me more!

20. Baryon asymmetry resolved

And leptons.

Cheers, John W.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150703/e39dbcd2/attachment.htm>