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

[David Mathes]

John
Instead of the Romanized alphabet, one way to go beyond might be  switching to Chinese, Japanese or Thai characters. That's what Seussian character type reminds me of.
Alright, you went blue, I'll go red...Happy 4th of July.



 
      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 10:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek and David: stripped with comments
   
 <!--#yiv8053531763 p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}-->#yiv8053531763 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}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"

Ok, how about "bound, pinned, confined and localized in a specific frame of reference...(grin)
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 ...

I believe that 42 is the correct universal answer...on a number of levels.

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?

Experiments and engineering will require some assemble framework. For a proper theory, combine a careful rigor with a "Crazy Ones" curiosity. With dreams and visions, propose and produce a theory that can be shaken, not stirred. Show me the data, and the graphs, and the images, and....
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!

I am hoping that Couder's team in France really explores this.
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.

I may be a little greedy but like you have already pointed out, we should go to a full blow theory on areas of investigation. In this case, the transluminal realm or state is a bit piecemeal treating the speed of like as a scalar instead of a vector or tensor. Perhaps that is the breakthrough that is required. Multidimensional GRT. Squeezed states and negative vacuum conditions ( vacuum < zero vacuum) should provide some interesting possibilities
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!

The accuracy of QED is nice but one can renormalize only so much, preferably not al all.
5. Quanta layer (below elementary particle layer) orwhat'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!

So noted...but "atomization" started everyone down the path to atoms and particles. Quanta is logically the next level.
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?

LOL, should have been more specific that CPT violations come in pairs - pick two. 
Are you aware of any CT violations? Why aren't CT violations detectable?
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?

Sorry, no. Someone should write a paper on all the variants of Maxwell's equations.

If you want an undergraduate solution, you are fine. Heaviside's simplification (Maxwell 4) is not sufficient. Even the Maxwell 20 may not be properly sufficient. Based on the Maxwell 20, Akins uses quaternions to bring out a few subtleties lost using the Maxwell 4. Barrett's EM version may be of help and produce engineering solutions that permit a closer experimental look. My preference is an electroweak version.
9. Gravity and QFT unified

Next conference

(see 11)
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.

Gravitational vector has been crudely defined as the Poynting vector S = E X B.
Varying an electric field is not as easy as a magnetic field. One can do wonders with a time varying magnetic field and produce interesting transient effects. 
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.

d'ALembertian provides an interesting wave solution. So does Schroedinger wave equation. Hmmm...combine the two and....?
13. Renormalization not necessary

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

I'm thinking of cut-off as well as frequency roll-off.
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 (andpositive 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.

"Negative" is ill-defined and in the same class as "virtual". Clear up the ambiguities with characterization.
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).

Matey, that's it. Hold your course, helmsman. and head for "the second star on the right, and straight on til morning".
Ahem...conservation of energy works well in flat space. Beyond that, energy in curved space does not necessarily result in conservation of energy. However, I am of the opinion that conservation of momentum will be conserved. Some resort to energy-momentum conservation. 
Multiverse is a good gendanken. I look forward to your paper on proving that the multiverse does not exist
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.

In certain engineering circles, there is a serious effort at examining existing data for additional fundamental forces. For detecting or even discerning a new force, I'm not sure the protocols are perfected yet let alone the vetting process.
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!

I don't believe in no-win situations. You are limiting your alphabet, perhaps out of necessity. 
So, we are going to differ on this. One issues is the Machian view vs local? Causality requires an arrow of time solution. Wheeler-Feynman and a few others...you get the idea...
Space-like vs time-like with light-like in the middle? Within the GRT framework, one needs to consider the conditions that might produce different results for light-like solutions. 
19. Scalable event horizon using fluid dynamic modeling (non-quantized)

I do not understand this. Tell me more! 

Engineering the event horizon distance as a variable might be interesting.
20. Baryon asymmetry resolved

And leptons.

Cheers, John W.

Take care, David M
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.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/20150703/33c09b9a/attachment.htm>