[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

David Mathes davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 4 10:23:56 PDT 2015 

John D
Can that be explained as simply as the Poynting Vector, S = E x M?
I've wondered if gravitation is a combination of the the three forces. Or perhaps just electroweak.
David
 
      From: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Saturday, July 4, 2015 6:08 AM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
   
#yiv5151720416 #yiv5151720416 -- _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMR10;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMTI8;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMSY10;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMBX10;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMR8;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMR9;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:CMMI10;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {font-family:TimesNewRomanPS;}#yiv5151720416 #yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416MsoNormal, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416MsoNormal, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 a:link, #yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5151720416 a:visited, #yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416MsoAcetate, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416MsoAcetate, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416BalloonTextChar {}#yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416msonormal, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416msonormal, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416msonormal {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416msochpdefault, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416msochpdefault, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416msochpdefault {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416msonormal1, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416msonormal1, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416msonormal1 {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 p.yiv5151720416msochpdefault1, #yiv5151720416 li.yiv5151720416msochpdefault1, #yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416msohyperlink {}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416emailstyle17 {}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416emailstyle171 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416EmailStyle29 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416EmailStyle30 {color:black;}#yiv5151720416 span.yiv5151720416EmailStyle31 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5151720416 .yiv5151720416MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5151720416 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv5151720416 div.yiv5151720416WordSection1 {}#yiv5151720416 Chip:  I think light creates a gravitational field. Light has a non-zero “active gravitational mass” and a non-zero “inertial mass”.   Any concentration of energy causes gravity.    RegardsJohn  

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: 04 July 2015 13:38
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Hi Martin  Energy in space, which comprises light, has momentum, is affected by gravity, and when confined, can demonstrate all the observable effects of mass that fermions display.  Light is affected by gravity, but a question for you, do you think that light also creates a gravitational field?  Does light contribute to the gravitation of the universe?  Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 7:18 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Dear David, thanks for the reply.You have a preference regarding mass and energy that, indeed,  I definitely do not share.The essence is in fully grasping “light is heavy”. After that one will never accuse the photon of being massless and still having momentum, as if it were a mystery.You provide me with even more evidence that “light is heavy” is a paper that I should try to publish in a real Journal, not just a conference. It is, implicitly, the very basis of ALL the electron models people are proposing in this discussion group. By the way you are in the same league with Frank Wilzcek, regarding this point at least.  For the coupling, I am sorry to let you down a bit, but you may have noticed the announcement of my second paper on topological solutions and 4-current. That will bring it closer.Actually, one of the things required for the knots to be stable is some form of self-interaction that could be calculated from Hamilton’s principle, as a starting point see paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6072, another essential ingredient for particles made out of pure fields.Then of course it is perfectly well allowed to come up with your own idea, and I would be very interested. The answer remains elusive, still …Very best regards,Martin  Dr. Martin B. van der MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +31 40 2747548  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: vrijdag 3 juli 2015 19:58
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: jgw at elec.gla.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  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  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 MarkPrincipal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare Philips Research Europe - EindhovenHigh Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)Prof. Holstlaan 45656 AE  Eindhoven, The NetherlandsTel: +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...fromHow 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 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 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 CarrollThe World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation
|   |
|   |  |   |   |   |   |   |
| The World of Everyday Experience, In One EquationLongtime 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>  

_______________________________________________
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/20150704/07641168/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 458 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150704/07641168/attachment.jpeg>

More information about the General mailing list