[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

[David Mathes]

Martin
A very stuffy paper. 
Mass and energy equivalence in this paper seems a bit one sided as if mass dominates the universe, a thoroughly Machian view. Except Machian is not a local view.  While I enjoy the Machian view that this paper and Rañada's work provide , the difficulty is the mass-energy relationship you have proposed seems a bit one sided as if mass reigned supreme above energy. 
p. 2  all energy has the same “essence”: it is mass 𝑚
I prefer to thing the opposite. All mass has the same essence which is energy, not that all energy has mass. Mass is simply a special case of energy density or energy-momentum. After all, a massless photon has momentum.
The flavors of mass need some clarity not addressed - gravitational, inertia, EM, and quantum. If one insists on using the strong force for an an example, then add strong mass. As to coupling, I was hoping that the level and type of coupling would have been addressed if only as a prelude to working with multiphysics programs such as COMSOL. 
David 
      From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Cc: "jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk" <jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk> 
 Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 8:44 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
   
#yiv5713156330 #yiv5713156330 -- _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMR10;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMTI8;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMSY10;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMBX10;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMR8;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMR9;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:CMMI10;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {font-family:TimesNewRomanPS;}#yiv5713156330 #yiv5713156330 p.yiv5713156330MsoNormal, #yiv5713156330 li.yiv5713156330MsoNormal, #yiv5713156330 div.yiv5713156330MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5713156330 a:link, #yiv5713156330 span.yiv5713156330MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5713156330 a:visited, #yiv5713156330 span.yiv5713156330MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5713156330 span.yiv5713156330EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5713156330 .yiv5713156330MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5713156330 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5713156330 div.yiv5713156330WordSection1 {}#yiv5713156330 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]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    The full paper.... 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 250thanniversary 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

    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 
|    |
|    |   |    |    |    |    |    |
| 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...  | 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.

_______________________________________________
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/20150703/33db83cf/attachment.htm>