[General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek

[David Mathes]

Chip
Is this approach just another missing variable conjecture?
D
 
      From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
 To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 2:26 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek
   
#yiv5519242034 #yiv5519242034 -- _filtered #yiv5519242034 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5519242034 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5519242034 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5519242034 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv5519242034 #yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034MsoNormal, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034MsoNormal, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 a:link, #yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5519242034 a:visited, #yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034MsoAcetate, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034MsoAcetate, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034MsoAcetate {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034BalloonTextChar {}#yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034msonormal, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034msonormal, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034msonormal {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034msochpdefault, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034msochpdefault, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034msonormal1, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034msonormal1, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034msonormal1 {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 p.yiv5519242034msochpdefault1, #yiv5519242034 li.yiv5519242034msochpdefault1, #yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034msochpdefault1 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034msohyperlink {}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034msohyperlinkfollowed {}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034emailstyle18 {}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034msohyperlink1 {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034msohyperlinkfollowed1 {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034emailstyle181 {color:black;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034apple-converted-space {}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034EmailStyle30 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5519242034 span.yiv5519242034EmailStyle31 {color:black;}#yiv5519242034 .yiv5519242034MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5519242034 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5519242034 div.yiv5519242034WordSection1 {}#yiv5519242034 Hi Chandra, Richard, and David  There is another possibility for understanding the “photon” as being quantized by discrete emission, not inherently quantized, and still be a fairly classical wave.  If space, or Chandra’s CTF, possesses a property which causes the motion of space, the circular undulation as the transverse wave passes, to not be specifically a planar circular motion, with the plane of the motion parallel to the direction of propagation, but due to the properties of the CTF, the plane of the circular wave motion is at the angle of 45 degrees from the longitudinal, and either left or right (or both left and right, for superimposed waves), it may produce the experimentally observed phenomena.  Chip  

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:45 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Hello David and Friends:   Please, remember that optical engineers have been shaping and reshaping visible EM waves into spatially and temporally structured light by pulsed laser cavities and various spatial light organizers and modulators, sometimes reaching the size of a single wavelength. These scientific (engineering) activities are the life-blood of very many optical engineers around the globe.  Sincerely,Chandra.  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Chip, Richard and all  For quantization, phat photons should be added to your list.   You may want to consider under what conditions partial wavelets are permitted. That is, not a full cycle regardless of the waveform. That alone might suggest something other than quantization.  Squeezed states also should be considered including amplitude, coherent or phase. Polarization should also be included  Finally, a rigorous review would consider squeezed vacuum (Casimir, White -NASA) and squeezed spacetime (Alcubierre,  Woodward) .   Good hunting,  David    
From: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek  Hi Richard Thank you. My reasons for asking these question are to try to put together the pieces to understand whether photons have an inherent quantization property, or are quantized only by the emitters and absorbers. One reason for this is to better understand the photon.  At this point I can envision two different possible solutions, only one can be correct.   First option: if the photon has inherent quantization, it would seem that it must have a “center of action” for its set of quantized fields. And the fields would be distributed about that center of action by the quantizing forces. But this raises many problems for the nature of the quantization.  How would a photon which is a large number of wavelengths long, display the same quantization as a photon with very few wavelengths, when they both have the same energy and frequency?  The spatial distribution of the two photons are radically different.  Quantization is the result of force, distance, and time. Generally, energy density creates force, but these two photons are so different in distance and energy density that it seems they cannot be quantized in this manner. So, either photons of a specific energy, must also always have the same number of wavelengths, or we do not have a means to assign an inherent quantization cause. ??? The available results of experiment are a bit confusing, but it seems that a photon can be any number of wavelengths??  Second Option:  The photon is not inherently quantized, but displays aspects of quantization, based solely on the emitter and absorber.  It seems that this scenario would also work in Compton scattering.  If we treat the electron like a specific set of fields, extending into space, instead of a point particle, then we can model Compton scattering without the need for inherent photon quantization. (This modeling of the electron would make sense because of the electron’s behavior in double slit experiments.)  This would allow an arbitrary number of wavelengths in a “photon”, since the photon is only quantized by the emitter, and the absorber is quantized, so it will only absorb quite specifically. If we could determine that a photon of a specific energy and frequency, must also have a specific and fixed number of wavelengths, it would make it easier to show a means of inherent quantization.  This would be nice since this inherent quantization could also provide for spin.  If the photon is not inherently quantized, then want do we do about photon spin? It seems that if the photon has inherent spin, it must be quantized? Chip    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:09 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Chandra and Chip,    A very interesting and informative exchange.        It seems that a key issue here is whether the photon is an “indivisible quantum” or is a continuous wave packet while traveling and that shows quantization only when it is emitted or absorbed, where the present support in your discussion is for the latter (continuous wave packet)  view. The problem is that we don’t know about a photon until something absorbs it and detects it, which makes it hard to decide which view is correct. But I think that you both may agree that an electron acts more like an “indivisible quantum” than perhaps a photon does, since an electron has conservation of charge (it’s easier to follow a charged particle through various interactions as in a cloud chamber) as well as conservation of particle number (photons can increase and decrease in number without violating a conservation law) .  I understand from the article that Chandra linked that Lamb showed that the photoelectric effect doesn’t require a photon to be quantized. But in his article he does mention the Compton effect as requiring quantization of the photon.        So an electron acts like an “indivisible quantum”. Yet an electron also displays diffraction properties for example in the double slit experiment, just like the photon. And the electron's presence is statistically predicted experimentally by Psi*Psi of its interference pattern at the screen or detector behind the slits, just like the photon. And during diffraction the electron I believe follows the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral calculation process just like the photon. So my point is, if the electron can be an “indivisible" quantum yet diffract, pass through 2 slits and be detected, just like a photon, why cannot the photon also been viewed as being an “indivisible quantum” like the electron? Clearly “indivisible” does not mean “point like” but it does mean that it can retain some kind of unitary existence while being somehow spread out in a wave form when passing through 2 slits and then reconstituted in a highly localized form when detected. I see the comparison between the electron and a photon as both being “indivisible quanta" as nearly perfect in this example.     And if the electron is actually a charged photon with all the photon’s diffraction properties, that makes the argument that an electron and a photon are both “indivisible quanta” even stronger. The fact that much of photonics can be done without invoking the photon as a particle, and by keeping to the wave properties of light as described by Maxwell’s equations and the Young-Fresnel integral, doesn’t mean that the photon is not an “indivisible quantum” like an electron. It just means that the word “indivisible” has to be used in the sense of “remaining as one entity despite various transformations”, as in the double-slit experiment.    The diffraction patterns produced by the photon and the electron (as a charged photon) may both be understood if the photon and the charged photon emit quantum waves with the photon's and charged photon's wavelength respectively as they move along (linearly and helically respectively). These quantum waves predict statistically where the photon and electron will be found later, and so both the photon and electron therefore act like Huygens sub-wave generators which produce wavelike diffraction patterns that follow the Huygens-Fresnel integral process.      Richard  
On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:51 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote: Chip: I am sorry that I did not clarify the photo electron emitting “dipole” is an electron bound by a single or collective nuclei (positive charges), as the case may be.Chandra.  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 8:07 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hi Chandra Thank you.  Somewhere I recently read a paper which indicated that at very low light levels, of the appropriate frequency, there was a measureable delay in the emission of any photoelectrons.  The paper indicated that this implied that multiple wavepackets could eventually excite the electron.  I will see if I can find this again. If I understand correctly, you refer to the electron as a dipole.  What is your sense of the nature of this “dipole”?  I am reading your paper and your book now, but haven’t gotten to this definition. By the way, very interesting work.  Thank you. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:03 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Chip: Answering this present email is easier than your last email; which is answered first. It is a big “YES”! To my knowledge, starting from Anderson (1st positron discovery), till modern times, nobody has generated electron-positron pair out of gamma ray without the mediation of some heavy nuclei. Regarding the last email on “Indivisible Quanta”, it is more complex. I have made my best effort to invalidate “Indivisible Quanta” (except gamma rays) in my book,  (free link sent in a previous email). I am attaching two recent “popular” short articles. They show how Einstein’s process-deprived thinking got the right energy-balance equation (photo electric equation), but failed to explain who is stimulating whom and how (the interaction process). The attached short papers have only two simple algebraic equations to illustrate my points of (i) Process mapping and (ii) Non-Interaction of Waves. Photo electrons are stimulated and “pumped out” by a large number of partially superposed wave packets and the bound electron, as a dipole, fills up its “quantum cup”  with the necessary energy from many wave packets, of course, the phases of the wave packets play crucial roles. It is difficult to overcome our personal Messiah Complex. It took me 40 years. In the past, I used to think that my neural network was mis-functioning. I have not fully overcome that fear, for sure yet! Simply because nobody knows the final reality of nature! Chandra. From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 5:33 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hi Chandra Another question for you regarding: The physical processes of “creations” and “annihilations” of EM wave packets can be done only by quantized dipoles; not by the EM field itself. Does this mean that you feel that electron-positron pair production cannot be done using “photons” alone, and can only be done in the presence of other particles, which act as a catalyst for the reaction? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 3:26 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hello Friends:Here is my hypothesis to bridge the gap left out by QM; because its foundation is averse to directly map the atomic transition process. There are two steps. First, there is a release of a quantum of energy (perturbation of the free space, or CTF). And then, the emergence, or evolution of the perturbation, as a classical wave packet. QM predicts, like a superb financial book keeper, the exact amount of energy that is exchanged during a transition. It does not say anything about the process that is behind the emergence of a classical wave packet. A quantized excited dipole releases  (h-nu)-quantity of energy on to the free-space (CTF); but the released energy (perturbation of the CTF) evolves as an un-quantized EM wave packet of the CTF of frequency “nu” and propagates away spreading out diffractively, as mapped by Huygens-Fresnel formulation. No serious optical scientist/engineer can survive without HF integral. HF integral maps the photon-wave-packets as divisible wavelets; not as Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” (perhaps, except gamma rays – new physics!). Dirac’s quantization of EM field represents re-packaged spontaneous and stimulated emissions carried out by resonant material dipoles. The physical processes of “creations” and “annihilations” of EM wave packets can be done only by quantized dipoles; not by the EM field itself. The field does not have any capability to execute any “operation” that are implied by QM operators. The physical operators are the dipoles that can be excited by EM fields or buy other dipoles. QM is mostly correct in predicting measurable data because in most cases, the mathematical operators represent real physical processes. But, we are culturally reluctant to visualize how the operations are executed by which physical entities. Thus we create mysticism in the interpretation of QM and also forget that it is only a work-in-progress, as all scientific theories are, by definition!! Notwithstanding Niels Bohr, the current QM is not “complete” and has to be supplanted by a much better approach of interaction process mapping epistemology (IPM-E). Sincerely,Chandra.From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2:16 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hi Richard It seems to me that in many ways we are saying the same thing, and perhaps only differ in a philosophical sense.  But the physical difference dictated by the different philosophical approaches may become important as we proceed.  Don’t know yet. All the energy is in the fields (waves), and there is either a thing (energy quantum), or a mechanism inherent in the fields which orchestrate their behavior.At the current time, I am of the opinion that the interaction of energy with space, creating fields which propagate at a finite velocity (waves), are fundamental, and that all forces are generated as a result of  energy reacting with space, creating propagating fields. I think we already have experimental evidence that this may be the case. But due to our theoretical foundations, we have not yet fully understood and recognized the evidence before us. So in this sense (and many others) I agree with Chandra, that we need to find the clues to modify and replace a few of the “bricks” in our foundation. What I am currently working on is a look at aspects of field equations, in quaternion form, and using the speed of light and time as the scalar part of, for example, Maxwell’s partial (vector part only) quaternions.  This is like putting in the velocity and reaction time of which Chandra spoke.  It is interesting and has been enlightening so far, but still much to do. But this work has had me thinking of exactly what the difference is in our definition of an “energy quantum”, and so far I feel the behavior of an “energy quantum” as I understand your definition, is created by the fields themselves. But there remains the question which Chandra and Martin have raised about the inherent quantization, or lack thereof, of the photon itself, and if it is clearly quantized for high energy photons, how is this different in lower energy “photons”. Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Hi Chip,   You say that electro-magnetic waves related to a photon or other so-called particles are "self-quantizing in specific ways”. The energy quantum doesn’t contain energy, it is not a container. It has energy E=hf depending on its frequency in a particular coordinate system, and different energy as viewed in a different moving coordinate system.  I say that the energy quantum of any fundamental particle has specific attributes that create, organize, maintain the existence of and transform the different fundamental particles into other fundamental particles and combinations of particles. The energy quantum generates wave patterns with wavelength and frequency and momentum p=h/lambda and spin 1 or 1/2 to form elementary particles with particular attributes, like flavor or color of a particle or antiparticle.  Do you say that the physical attributes of the electron, photon, neutrino, quark etc are all contained in their waves? If so how? Is there any way to experimentally distinguish between these two views, or are we talking metaphysics?      Richard 
On Jul 14, 2015, at 5:46 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard Yes, we differ, at this time, in or opinion on this point.  I feel that the fields (waves) contain all the energy and are self-quantizing in specific ways, due to the interaction of energy with space. So I do not currently see the need of, or room for, an entity which you envision as an “energy quantum” to explain what we observe.  It seems that is already taken care of with just the energy and space, fields and waves. In your view, does the energy quantum contain energy?  If it does, where does this energy come from, is this energy in any way detectable?  I ask this because it seems that all of the energy is already accounted for in the waves, leaving none for this little engine the “energy quantum”.  If the energy quantum contains no energy, then how does it do its work?  These issues, and about a dozen more, are what has led me to believe the “energy quantum” is not required for a complete description of the behavior of energy as it reacts with space, forming photons, and fermions. Thoughts? Chip From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 7:38 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Chip,   I like your description of the stuff or energy quantum of an electron or photon as having a center of action (particularly since “action” in physics has the dimensions of energy x time and also of angular momentum mvr which is the dimensions of Planck’s constant h). But I think the energy quantum GENERATES the quantum waves associated with the energy quantum, rather than IS these waves. Yet these waves from a single electron (charged photon) or uncharged photon have a kind of unity since these waves all evolved from a single energy quantum (the electron or the photon) and can manifest that energy quantum (electron or photon) again. For a single free electron or photon, these waves may go through two slits before interfering at a screen on the other side of the slits and predicting probabilistically where the electron or photon will be found on the other side.      Richard 
On Jul 13, 2015, at 7:09 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Richard Opinion: while it is probably useful to use the analogy that an electron is a confined photon, it is not really precisely correct.  Martin said in his paper on “stuff” principally the same thing I was thinking,  that the electron has the same stuff in it that a photon has, but in a different configuration. It is the configuration of the stuff which makes it either an electron or a photon.  The spin mode changes the topology of the inherent stuff.  This stuff is the reaction of energy as it propagates through space. The stuff has a particular set of properties inherent, but specifically due to those inherent properties, also takes on properties depending on its spin mode. It has at least two different stable spin modes, but more likely three or four spin modes are possible when fully understood. These modes define the photon and the stable particles including the electron and proton. In my opinion a photon behaves like a particle because the stuff in the photon has a center of action. And the photon behaves like a wave because it is not completely localized at a single point, but is a set of fields occupying space. So it is not like a regular wave, and it is not a particle in the conventional sense. The photon and electron share this wave/particle behavior, in that they both have a center of action, but are both comprised of fields which extend off into space. So because of the experimentally illustrated behavior of photons (and electrons) as they react with particles, I think there must be some level of quantization inherent in the photon itself which provides for the center of action.  Space is able to propagate energy, and spin angular momentum. It seems that space itself may actually promote spin angular momentum, a form of energy propagation topology defining the center of action, and therefore a form of quantization. I am coming to think that the transverse wave action of energy propagating through space causes a specific sort of polarization in space which further impacts the wave (and therefore field) topology.  This type of polarization would tend to cause left and/or right spin components in the otherwise planar circular wave action in space. So, since there is not time before the conference to rewrite my submission, I will have to address many of these issues in the next version. But in that version I will not be claiming that the electron is specifically a confined photon, for it is not. It is however made of the same stuff as a photon. Chip  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:46 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Physics in 100 years according to Wilczek Martin and Chip,    In the second paragraph, first line of my previous email, please substitute   "momentum p=h/lambda = gamma mc "     for   “momentum p=h/lambda  = h/(gamma mc)"    .  The typo is corrected in the text below (so you can ignore the previous e-mail).  Sorry for the typo.          Richard 
On Jul 12, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote: 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.)     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 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 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>  

_______________________________________________
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/20150715/38c7279e/attachment.htm>