[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
Andrew Meulenberg
mules333 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 6 07:13:51 PDT 2015
Dear Martin,
You have clarified your point and refined my thinking. Thank you. My
mistake was in thinking that the deBroglie frequency was like the Compton
frequency and had a constant relationship with the deBroglie wavelength.
But, the conversion wrt v, not c, makes your version correct.
Your point about the constant distance between the proton and electron,
rather than a constant distance (of r = lambda_dB /2pi) to the center of
the orbit is interesting. Does this mean that the actual orbital
circumference is less than the dB wavelength over 2 pi? It is a small
difference, but perhaps important in some cases. Is the actual radius based
on the dB wavelength using the reduced mass rather than on the electron
mass? Of course, the problem of the orbit shape is important. However, I
think that for the atomic-electron orbitals, the total orbit length is the
same in both circular and near-linear orbits.
Andrew
____________________________
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
> 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>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Martin, I meant Newton’t 3rd law.
>
> Richard
>
> On Jul 3, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Richard Gauthier <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> 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
> <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> 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
> <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 250**th **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: 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
> <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
> <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 mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20150706/9a5fba78/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list