[General] final? update of one of my papers...
Nick Green
nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk
Mon Jul 13 16:38:32 PDT 2015
Thank you Martin for a really nice paper. It confirmed much and took me
that little bit further than I expected.
Certainly a recursive hierarchy of electromagnetc vortices whose
interactions account for observables. How to describe the topology and
coherence energy of the resulting stuff is the nature of the problem.
On the interesting question does space produce physics or must we put
stuff in space to produce physics Gordon Pask proposed space comprised
voids (absolutely empty spave no virtual anything) and non-void
(something) necessary for separation of boundaries to exist. His version
of wave particle dualism was stated "Every process produces a product
and every product is produced by a process" Product/Proces duality in fact.
Add that at least two processes are needed to produce a product and that
processes and products exist in a resonance. Pask spoke of at least two
concept processes in resonance to produce a third where for him a
concept was the internal state of an Actor (Stuff as Martin has it)
acquired through interactions with neighbours.
He went further with his Exclusion principle "There are No
Doppelgangers": in the limit (of precision) no two states are the same.
This accounts for innovation over time for the forms produced by
interaction. At least this may be an novel way of re-telling the story
of wave mechanics where like spins repel and unlike spins attract.
Specifically the minimal space filling process/product resonance was
represented by a Borromean Ring. The repulsive force of the major axis
of each torus was replaced by a repulsive strut and when three struts
were arranged in space (to create a non void) nine tension strings were
needed to create an equilibrium chiral prismatic tensegrity. This
suggests there may be a three to one ratio theorem about attractions and
repulsions or phase shifts for a wave filling space. OK conjecture over.
There is clearly a general need for a better theory of coherence energy
because of the depression of melting point phenomenon and possible
objects like WIMPS. I still worry about the Abraham-Minkowski
controversy. Nothing happens in our world until an photon enters an
electric field and we can't decide if the photon gains or loses
momentum. It may not matter if photons bend forward or backward when
field strength alters but it may one day.
There's some wonderful things going on here and I wish you all well and
please don't take your eye off the ball!
Best
N.
On 05/07/2015 21:50, Mark, Martin van der wrote:
>
> Dear all I am going to submit this paper to the conference in time
> before the deadline (the 15^th ), comments are still welcome.
>
> 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:*Mark, Martin van der
> *Sent:* zondag 5 juli 2015 20:42
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* RE: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
>
> 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
> distancehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_forcein 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 250/**/thanniversary
> 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 atrichgauthier 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
> atrichgauthier 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 nick_green at blueyonder.co.uk
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/nick_green%40blueyonder.co.uk?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/20150714/28e696c9/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list