[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Sun Jul 12 18:30:57 PDT 2015

Rich
Uncharged photon? 
Ahhhh, a photon by any other name is still a photon. 
Really? Do we know a photon when we see one? 
Is the uncharged photon an accurate term? Is there a better term? Could the photon carry neutralized charge? Does the EM photon need to reach a critical point to display or reveal charge? An uncharged photon suggests something is missing as if charge was not already there. Balanced charge might be a part of a photon. Could it be that the charge is neutralized?
Perhaps we should begin with the idea that any particle contains electric charge. More specifically, any particle with mass has charge. That charge may be neutralized in a number of ways but the charge is still present. In order for the photon to be charged, the uncharged photon may be missing an ingredient, or may be neutralized charges such as entangled charged photons. 
If we permit entangled photons, then we must examine what is charge, or rather how is charge generated. Is charge an asymmetry of sorts based on phase angle between two photons on the same path?
 A cross-polarized photon is another possibility. Cell phones have antennas that emit/absorb cross-polarized signals. I'm still thinking about another alternative with cross-polarized photons or two photons that are 90 degrees out of phase. 
To start, look at various emission and radiation schemes such as Cherenkov or Bremstrallung. Other velocity-based emissions or energy exchanges may be possible. 
Symmetrically charged photons that are properly entangled might be possible. So, two entangled charged photons propagating at 180 degrees out of phase might be possible. 
An asymmetrical release of two photons from a single electron or positron also needs to be considered. Hagen has suggested pair creation where a single photon creates two transient particles, an electron and positron. What if the particles are reversed that (gendanken warning) with a single electron or positron emitting two photons. Immediately, we assume a symmetrical release which when one thinks about various models, that might not be the only case. An asymmetrical release could occur in a number of ways. 
Furthermore, charge is considered invariant. Can charge change according to velocity? Is charge invariant under velocity and acceleration? How would we know?
>From a mathematics standpoint, in order to have an uncharged photon, we may need to clearly define the symmetry of a photon. Is charge related to symmetry or lack of symmetry? The following formula non-standard model combines into a single equation the known symmetries of phase, polarization, spin, and Poincaré symmetry. 
? hv == U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) X SU(4) X SO(1,3) 
Note that the Lorentz group is a simplification of Poincaré symmetry, and in turn, Poincaré symmetry is a simplification of deSitter group (
Perhaps we should look at known asymmetries beginning with CP or PT violations. 
Finally, in defining the uncharged photon, one should consider time reversals...T-symmetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as well as Wheeler-Feynman. 

David

      From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 4:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

Hello Martin and Chip,
   I’m in agreement with Martin (below) that a normal photon is not a particle and is not a wave. Chip may agree also on this point (or not?) A photon is an uncharged energy quantum (or quantum of energy) moving linearly at lightspeed and generating waves, with c=f lambda and having spin 1 hbar, energy E=hf and  linear momentum p=h/lambda.  We can call the photon's “stuff” energy or relativistic mass (I prefer “energy” as being preferable to "relativistic mass” but opinions differ.)
(Ed note: per Richard momentum has been corrected in the following paragraph. )
    When a photon's energy quantum is circulating in a circle or helix to form a resting or moving electron, the photon’s energy quantum also has c=f lambda, energy E=hf=gamma mc^2 and momentum p=h/lambda = gamma mc   and moves at lightspeed along its circular or helical path and is generating waves. But now the photon's energy quantum has a rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2 , a spin of Sz =1/2 hbar and carries the charge -e of the electron. This is why I call it the charged photon model of the relativistic electron. I call it a charged photon because it has the charge of the electron -e, and moves circularly or helically at lightspeed and has E=hf and p=h/lambda like a photon,  but now has the rest mass m= 0.511MeV/c^2  and spin 1/2 hbar of an electron. Well of course the charged photon model of an electron has charge -e, rest mass 0.511MeV/c^2, and spin 1/2 hbar because by hypothesis it IS an electron. I think that the burden of reasoned proof is on anyone with a circulating photon model of the electron who claims that their circulating photon continues to be uncharged, to have no rest mass and to have spin 1 hbar to explain how this can be, even though the circulating photon is forming an electron which has the electron’s rest mass, spin 1/2 and electric charge -e. 
    with best regards,          Richard

On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:
Dear Chip, thank you for that reply.Indeed, i also agree that the word "photon" has been used in different ways by me in the past. At present i do not even believe it is a particle!It is simply the quantum of energy emitted and absorbed by matter in an interaction, the radiation fields are not quantized by themselves, but only as a result of the matter it is interacting with. So the title of the 1997 paper is a bit too suggestive talking about a localized photon (as if it is a particle of its own)."The photon is a quantum of radiation, in energy and/or angular momentum, as it appears in an interaction between matter."I am not sure that it is proper english though.  ;-)That same quantum appears to exist, as "stuff", in a different configuration, as an electron.
Does this make sense?I think so, and it is a position I take for the conference. Most of all it does not explain the photon, but it surely tells what it isn't: it is not a particle and not a wave!Cheers, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 5 jul. 2015 om 15:14 heeft Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

Hi Richard I am not having a problem understanding Martin’s position on the “mass” of the photon.  His overall discussion seems perfectly coherent to me. While there might be some slightly “confusing” statements, when they are taken in the context of discussion in his “Light is heavy” paper I can see his points.  For me the energy present in the photon is simply its total mass equivalence.  But the photon possesses no “rest mass”. But I really like Martin’s paper on stuff, because it also implies that perhaps the properties of the “confined photon” have been changed in certain ways so that we might not be precisely correct in stating that an electron is a confined photon.  Upon confinement the “stuff” is now behaving differently.  Yes the energy of the “stuff” is still there, but is it still proper to call it a photon? Perhaps for illustration purposes it is OK to call it a photon, but that should not be allowed to interfere with our understanding of what is actually happening.  So in the electron, the “stuff”, due to its inherent properties, is now behaving in ways which it does not behave in photons. So that the electron, and photon, are different manifestations of the properties and configurations of “stuff”.  Hi Andrew Envisioning the displacement of space to create fields probably helps to clarify where the energy is at all times.  The total energy does not change during “oscillation”.  Oscillation conserves energy.  The total energy does not come and go, so I agree with Martin, that the total mass is also principally constant, and does not oscillate in and out of existence, or between positive and negative mass. In fact this is one of the principles that I believe we must preserve in any model for an electron or photon.  The constancy of the energy present.  As a wave propagates, in any medium, the total energy in the wave remains constant, (ignoring friction or other disturbances) so the mass equivalence of that wave remains constant. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 5:31 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Martin (and all)   You say at the end of “Light is Heavy”: "If the photon would be put to rest, its gravitational mass would equal its rest mass, and hence vanish.”  I think we can agree that the closest light can be to “rest” in a vacuum is if it traveling at light-speed in a closed circle (or at light-speed in a helix as seen from a moving frame) as in our electron models. I think the question “Does such a photon have a rest mass?” is fundamental to our electron models and I think it would be good if we were able to  agree on a consistent answer that can be backed by rational arguments. I claim that this circulating (circularly or helically-moving) photon does have a constant rest mass (that of the electron) since it has energy E=gamma mc^2 but its average linear momentum is zero for a resting electron or p=gamma mv in the case of an electron moving with speed v (leading in either case to a calculation of rest mass m from the relativistic energy momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4). Plus we know that an electron has a rest mass m so that the hypothetical photon composing the electron also must have the same rest mass m, whether the electron is moving or not. John W has indicated earlier (as I understood him) that this photon would not have a rest mass because the photon is moving at light-speed, but its confinement due to a pivot produces the rest mass of the electron. Martin seems to be saying in “Light is Heavy" that this circulating photon has a non-zero rest mass due to its self-confinement and so it is heavy. Are these two positions really different?  Could both of you make a brief clarifying statement about this point, briefly summarizing your reasons, so we can see the level of our agreement or disagreement on this point?  Also Chip, John D, John M, Vivian, Andrew?     Richard  
On Jul 4, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:  Thank you John D and Martin This is what I also thought.  Light must have a very small contribution to the universal gravitational field.  After all, it is made of the same “stuff” as everything else. 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 8:13 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hi Chip,Yes it does, but the total mass in all the radiation in the universe is far less than that of matter, in the present era. In the first 300.000 years after the big bang (whatever that was), the universe was plasma and radiation dominated. I would have to look into the details again to tell you more.As I am typing this I see John D giving a good answer as well.Cheers, oh and thanks for the compliments about my paper. I will remove some typo’s and deal with some questions in a later edition this week.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 Chip Akins
Sent: zaterdag 4 juli 2015 14:38
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 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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.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/20150713/af346550/attachment.htm>