[General] (no subject)

[David Mathes]

Rich
I found the email you were referring to. Here is the snippet on the three possible paths of the future. Many others are possible as noted below. In order to answer the meta question of "what's inside...", I believe that one has to keep track of all three levels of electron, photon and quanta with the photon as the centerpiece.

"One is to refine the photon as electron model, another is to expand to the photon as other standard model particles, probably the most productive. Finally, going inside the photon and providing some direction on the search for the next level down, the quanta level, should prove really interesting.
In view of Wilczek's obsession with QCD and SUSY, one possible area to investigate is if the current model can be used to predict SUSY particles. SUSY provides elegant symmetry. So it was said about the SM too. However, the parametric equations permit variants, lend themselves to knots, and may provide answers to existing anomalies as well as unknown anomalies that may be predictable."
Good hunting,
David
 
      From: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 6:28 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
   
Richard
For   the three directions  modeling the electron as a photon are classical, relativistic and transluminal. Such an order would permit acceptance within current theories while exploring the third conjecture. One could argue spacetime (space waves). 
Improbable, the fourth investigative direction is superluminal-only modeling especially  for a best-fit analysis with known experiments. High energy gamma ray modeling might be a good start. One possible result is that dark matter and dark energy might be explained in part by superluminal modeling, or at least by frequency shifting. 
Yes, the electron and photon have similar behavior. Electron and photon share optical properties including nonlinear effects.
In my opinion plane waves are premature to confine the wave function strictly to s. Is this a conclusion or simply the first order starting point? Every major type of wave under GRT and QM including  spherical, parabolic, hyperbolic waves should be explored especially at light-like velocities. Soliton and Alven waves should be reviewed.
The current model you have proposed is a 3D toroid with a high level of symmetry whether the toroid is ring, point or spindle. So pursuing a 4D model might be considered as a line of investigation. Perhaps reviewing knot theory as well as torus theory. Nonlinear effects *may* include nonlinear resonance, and the foldover effect. The folder effect, a S-pattern, suggests that envelope tracking is not enough requiring one to map the waveform from both directions (low to high, high to low). Tracking a S plot will prove interesting. (paging Chip)
Another area is the transition process for any proposed model from photon to electron, and from electron to releasing a photon. In particular, I'm concerned that closure or near closure (aka knots) is required for extended lifetime. In contrast, pair creation has a very short lifetime that may be due to not achieving closure in a timely fashion. At the last session on Tuesday, Meulenberg is presenting an interesting paper on this process. Then Hagen presents an interesting rigorous paper on electron to photon transition. 
As to Maxwell theories, a good review is necessary is needed to summarize the known Maxwell variations even by Maxwell himself. I've referred to the Maxwell 4 (Heaviside revision) and the Maxwell 20 (original treatise). However, the Maxwell 8 seems to be the current favorite working set. Some researchers have resorted to extension (Barrett) and others have suggested even more changes. Have we reached a point with experiments that suggest Maxwell's equations are in need of revision? 
Due to  the variety of electron and photon theories, a roadmap, or two or three, is going to be needed. 

Best
David





 
   

   From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 4:26 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
   
Hi David and all,    Please disregard the previous blank e-mail which I sent accidentally.
    Thanks for your further suggestions. I think the direction I am thinking of going touches all three of your suggested directions. 
I showed in my article that a plane light wave (with wavelength equal to the charged photon’s wavelength for a relativistic electron) emitted by the charged photon in the direction the helical trajectory of the charged photon generates along its helical axis the quantum wave function of a free election. Also since the electron is a charged photon (according to my hypothesis), the electron acts like a photon in a number of ways, like having double-slit effects. Also since the Psi*Psi of an electron's wave function Psi is the probability density of finding an electron, this is just like the Psi*Psi of a photon's wave function Psi as the probability density of finding a photon, like in the double slit experiment for an photon or an electron.  
This leads me to think that all quantum wave functions of an electron (as described in quantum mechanics with the Schrodinger equation for non-relativistic electrons or with the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons) including bound state quantum wave functions of the electron, will be generated by plane waves of a charged photon directed along the charged photon’s helical trajectory, also in the presence of an electric potential. 
In short, the quantum mechanical wave functions of an electron are produced by a helically moving charged photon's electromagnetic plane waves. So there must be some kind of Maxwell’s equations for the charged photon (which generate quantum wave functions along the charged photon’s helical trajectory) similar to Maxwell’s equations for normal electromagnetic waves, which generate photon wave functions. John W seems to be working on something like this. What do you think?       Richard 



On Jul 11, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:



On Jul 6, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
Andrew, good question, it took me a little time to see it, but it is easy in hindsight as always.In the linear motion of a breather, there is a shorter path, but acceleration and deceleration on the path, which takes time! Hence, the instantaneous de Broglie wavelength is changing! It is chirped! On the circular orbit, the velocity is not changing in magnitude but in direction and de Broglie wave projections on a radial line behave exactly similar.Going to a more advanced model of the atom, with elliptical paths, one must quantize both the momentum p and the angular momentum L with r and theta the coordinates of interest. Then it follows that the ground state is actually a breather and not a circulation. (Wilson-Sommerfeld theory, I think)I hope this helps,Very best, 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 Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: maandag 6 juli 2015 16:14
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  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 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 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 redVery 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 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 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.
<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 atmules333 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>  _______________________________________________
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 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/20150712/2aa83349/attachment-0001.htm>