[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

[Mark, Martin van der]

Dear Richard,
(Andrew you want to pay attention to this too!)
Here is the continuation of my reply to your comments on my SPIE paper.
I have changed the text regarding your point 2 and 4 and will also do this for point 3.
Your calculation below is correct. More important is, the reason why it is; how the quantization condition is put in.
What was wrong in the paper is that not only the orbital frequencies of proton and electron were taken equal (correctly) but also the De Broglie frequencies. This leads to two quantization conditions that look very plausible, but it is wrong: both proton and electron De Broglie wavelengths fit on their own orbital around the center of mass.
On closer examination I saw this appears to lead to trouble with the reduced mass and orbital angular momentum, things do not add up properly.

Right answer is:
The conclusion is that the reduced mass, proton and electron orbital frequency are (all three) identical, as are the respective De Broglie wavelengths. The total angular momentum is the sum of that of proton and electron and is, in the Bohr model, precisely hbar, as it should.
This means, and that is somewhat puzzling if one imagines a circular orbit (instead of a radial breathing, which is going on in reality), that the De Broglie wavelengths of both proton and electron do NOT fit on their circular orbit, but DO fit on the distance between them divided by pi! Both electron and proton act in such a way that they forget about the world around them and only see the other particle going round them in a path of exactly the De Broglie wavelength.
De Kinetic energy of the proton is less than the electron’s by their mass ratio.

Richard, well done, thank you very much indeed. I have put you in the acknowledgement of the paper, truly and totally deserved.
I will sent a new copy of the paper with all the changes and suggestions by you and others. No change in the results, but much better quality!

Very best regards, 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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: vrijdag 3 juli 2015 19:21
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Hi Martin,
  Please scratch the previous derivation for KEp/KEe  which had typos, though the result is the same. Here it is again: (a) Mp Rp = Me Re    so    Rp/Re = Me/Mp    (b) KEe = 1/2 Me Re^2 Omega^2   and KEp = 1/2 Mp Rp^2 Omega^2   (c) KEp/KEe = (Mp Rp^2)/(Me Re^2)   (d) KEp/KEe = (Mp/Me) (Rp/Re)^2   =   (Mp/Me)  (Me/Mp)^2   = Me/Mp = 1/1836
    Richard

On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:

Martin,  I meant Newton’t 3rd law.
    Richard
On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Martin,
   Thanks for your detailed reply to my comments. Looking forward to the next draft/final draft.
On point 3, Classical mechanics gives the proton in a hydrogen atom having Me/Mp = 1/1836 times the kinetic energy of the electron. This is derived from (a) Mp Rp = Me Re  from conservation of momentum or Newton’s second law, where Rp and Re are the distances of the proton and the electron from their common center of mass, and (b) KEe = 1/2 Me Re Omega^2   and KEp = 1/2 Mp Rp Omega^2  for the KE of the electron and the proton  respectively as they revolve around their common stationary CM,  where Omega is their common angular velocity around their CM. From (b) this gives KEp/KEe = (Mp Rp^2)/(Me Re^2). Substituting Rp = Re (Me/Mp) from (a) into (b)  gives KEp/KEe = Me/Mp = 1/1836 .
   Richard

On Jul 3, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:

Dear Richard,
Thank you very much for looking at the paper so thoroughly. Good questions too!
See below for answers, in red
Very best regards, 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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: vrijdag 3 juli 2015 1:12
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

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.
Very good question. First of all I am taking the point of view of conventional physics here, and hence I must be ignorant about quarks themselves perhaps being like light-speed knots as well. But since that notion is seeping into the paper through the abstract and earlier sections, you are right and I also have to explain it from that point of view. Now there are two possibilities:
a)      The quark is like the Williamson-van der Mark electron, it is not knotted and may interact in a point-like fashion as indicated in the 1997Ann Fond L De Broglie paper. Then it will show the behavior you indicate: for its head-on interaction it seems to have shrunk to a small size.
b)      The quark is a knot of light. Now it there will be extra stresses when one lobe will be pulled in head-on interactions and no point-like interaction will occur. A proton has a real size associated to it: its charge radius, so then will the quark have a real size. This size will not scale as that for a photon, so this ruled out.
c)      The quark is just a lump of some mostly non-electromagnetic basic stuff. Then its interaction doesn’t scale like that of a photon either. Ruled out.
All of these possibility a), b) and c) are already excluded in the paper based on the ratio of kinetic energy and total energy, but suppose I made a mistake in my estimate and there is still just enough energy left to make possibility a) true. Then you should realize that relativity does not realy make things shrink, it only makes things look to have shrunk in your frame, in the direction of motion.
What I mean is best illustrated in the following way. Consider a quite heavy nucleus with many protons and neutrons together. Their distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force in a nucleus is quite similar to the charge radius: 0.7-1.0 fm, which I call the size of the proton. Now if the quarks would be a 100 times larger, the proton would be too, and so would the nucleus have to be. In possibility a), only a head-on interaction process would make them look small. This interaction between quarks of one nucleon and another is not taking place, see  the remark on the bag model of the nucleus and non-fusion of the nucleon membrane.
In relativity, objects do not really shrink, and usually do not even show it laterally to the direction of motion. It is all a matter of perspective (pun intended).
You see, it is not easy or obvious, it takes quite some text to explain. This means, at least in this case, that it is a good question you posed.
I am not sure how to improve the paper regarding this point… leaving out the remark about the Compton wavelength size is one possibility….

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.
Yes I agree that this may be confusing since  De Broglie came later than Bohr. I should formulate this a little better. Bohr just postulated the stability, then came the explanation.

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 .
This is what I thought too, originally, but the equations tell another story, I will look at it again to make sure I didn’t make some mistake though…..can you find it? It doesn’t matter for the message of the paper but whatever I say, it should be correct.

Also there is a typo above equation 5 on page 7:  “where" not “were"
Thank you, will fix it!

I will send you an update once I have dealt with this.

     best regards,
         Richard

On Jul 2, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto: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] 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

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 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/>




[image]<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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

_______________________________________________
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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150705/2b2db838/attachment.htm>