[General] Engineering applications. Theory of light and matter.

Thu Mar 12 07:10:44 PDT 2015

Hi John W and all

Wanted to share this little graphic. One (my) rendering of John Williamson's
and Martin van der Mark's 1997 electron model. Showing one of many possible
paths.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 12:23 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: 'Hans De Raedt'
Subject: [General] Engineering applications. Theory of light and matter.

Dear everyone,

I want to get away from the airy-fairy theory stuff and get down to a
discussion of nuts and bolts. I come from an engineering school after all.
Chandra is right: if we really want to get proper attention, funding and
development we need to begin to think about developing engineering
applications. 

Firstly: what does a theory do? What is the point of the merely theoretical?

A theory allows one to think things that otherwise cannot be thought. It
provides a framework and a language for those thoughts. In so far as it
parallels reality, it allows the development and design of new kinds of
things that are not naturally found in the environment. Technologies.

If this is so, then why is it that certain elements of our current theories
have not had much, if any, impact on technological developments? For the
current state of affairs xkcd  pretty much summed the current state of
affairs up a couple of weeks ago. (thanks to John Weaver for bringing this
to my attention - very funny, but horribly close to the truth).

http://www.xkcd.org/1489/

While the actual situation is not just quite this bad (there is an analytic
expression for the weak interaction, for example) - it is, for all practical
purposed (FAPP), horribly true. The strong interaction theory, in
particular, is just not useful in any energy range of interest. The language
analogy would be that these theories have no words at the chemical and
ordinary physical scale. No words for anything outside of a nuclear
explosion (weak) or big bang (strong). Since we do not usually want to
engineer nuclear explosions or big bangs these theories, even if correct,
are of little practical use in thinking about or the development of
technology. Such theories, far from being a help, can, indeed, be a
hindrance to thinking. One well known one is the popular view of uncertainty
in quantum mechanics. Again well summed up below :

http://www.xkcd.org/1473/

Cannot know? Says who?

There are practical theories which do help: Newton's laws, Einstien's
relativity, Schroedinger's quantum (wave) mechanics, the marvelous Maxwell
equations and Feynmann's quantum electrodynamics have all helped drive
technology to the incalculable benefit of us all. If we have all those, why
do we need a new one?

Quite apart from the fact that it would be nice to have a single theory
encompassing all of the above, the answer lies in part in the theory missing
from the list above. Relativistic quantum mechanics. Dirac theory. This
theory is simple, linear and beautiful. Why has it not had more impact on
technology? I think the answer is that it is still just a bit too simple. It
does matter. It does half-integral spin (wonderfully). It does not, however,
do charge properly. It does not do light. At least it does not do light
right.

What if we had a theory which fixed this? One which remained linear, like
the Dirac and Maxwell equations, explained the quantisation of light (unlike
the Maxwell equations), and had analytic solutions for light, matter and
mixed states of light and matter. What kinds of things could we think with
it which otherwise could not be thought?

That is what this note is about. It will probably be quite long as there is
so much to do, but it will cover only a fraction of the possible. Also,
though there are nanotechnological implications in devices, out of respect
for my colleagues in the nanotech department I am in I shall steer away from
these here, but discuss such things with them first. Tim Drysdale is leaving
for pastures new - so stuff on the modeling of electromagnetism is fair
game. Nanotech in materials  (which was once a great strength here) has been
discontinued at Glasgow - so this is ok too.

For the purposes of this note it will be assumed that my own new theory of
light and matter is valid. It is the language I'm using to think this stuff
after all, and I cannot use another language I do not yet speak. In reality,
even if this theory is on the right track is not likely to be whole story,
at least in detail, as there are other possibilities (such as the choice of
fundamentally left-handed co-ordinate system) which introduce sign changes.
No matter. This note will explore some of the possible applications making
the presumption that my theory is correct as it stands. If so -what might
one expect it to be able to do? The argument would be similar for any other,
linear, relativistic theory of light and matter we may be able to come up
with.

This reads a bit like the Williamson program for the next couple of decades,
provided, of course, that I can duplicate myself in dozens - but there you
go. I hope to inspire some of you to take some of these things up-as I just
do not have the time. What is really needed is a good slab of funding so we
can get dozens of young bright minds educated and get, properly, to work .
Any ideas on how to implement that would be especially welcome.    

Some of the stuff discussed below is already trying to happen - but in a
halting kind of way. Pavel Osmera  (I am on the proposal, but Pavel did most
of the work) put in an application for a few million Euros to develop some
of the physical-chemistry of this within the Horizon2020 framework. He will
probably want to say more about this. Unfortunately, we have just heard that
it has not been funded. Europe has anyway slashed spending on this kind of
research to help support our needy bankers. I had put in for money for a
postdoc, in the hope of hiring someone like Mayank or Adam K - (sorry guys!)
I also put in another grant application (for just 50k!) to buy myself out of
my teaching for a year to pursue some of this research. That has not been
funded either. Looks like more teaching of stuff most of you would consider
high-school level maths  to 400 students at a time. Ho-hum!

Coming back to my stuff. This is a new linear theory, treating both light
and matter on an equal footing and within the same theoretical framework.
This is unprecedented. The competitor theories have not proven to be
calculable. Dirac proves famously difficult, even for such simple things as
the hydrogen atom. The practical theory we have used in the solid state has
therefore been, pretty much exclusively, the non-relativistic Schroedinger
equation. No chance of getting light in properly here then. Even if it did
allow me to imagine and develop such things as the quantum point contact
(worlds first nano electronic device, I believe) in the past.

A reading of so called "theoretical" explanations of anything in the
collective domain in the solid state (plasmons, fractional quantum hall,
superconductivity etc) reveals the futility of trying to understand any of
these properly in these terms. The idea that these states are bound
electromagnetic vortices is basically good - but the nuts and bolts misses
the point as it goes in on mere energetics. It is always explanation after
the fact and not  pointers to the way to go. It is poor explanation at
that.This stuff has been my field for decades and I knew it inside-out up
till two decades ago and still keep up with developments. Do not bother.
Start over. Take the scientific method seriously! Theory not working? Throw
it out and make a new one!

The present theory for the superconductor, for example, reveals that such
things as high temperature superconductivity are simply not possible at all.
Not good.  They are! The "Cooper pair" conjecture breaks down when
confronted with experiment - not only because of the huge energy gulf, but
also because of experimental contradictions such as the Tate anomaly. This
makes the development of new materials (and we are sooo close to room
temperature now) on a theoretical basis, pretty much a waste of time. The
only real way forwards so far has been guesswork by talented
experimentalists and pure blind chance. 

The new theory may be expected to change this completely once we start to
calculate stuff with it. Consider, for example, the Tate anomaly. In this
(excellent) experiment Tate et. al measured the Cooper pair mass
experimentally. Beautiful. With a resolution to see the expected (very
small) binding energy in Niobium, In the event the theory was almost an
order of magnitude wrong. Worse: it was in the WRONG direction. The
di-electron spin zero pair was not energetically bound, but energetically
unbound. In a world where Quantum field theory deals exclusively with energy
in the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian interpretations one is just completely
lost. Mouth full of teeth. Nothing to say. Only my granddad would not have
been lost for words. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! (he would have
said). It is blindingly obvious that one needs a completely new theoretical
approach (would say his grandson). This is an area where a new linear theory
could, should and would, have an enormous impact. There is no Cooper pair.
There is something else. In my view it is a resonant - harmonic
di-electro-Boson state. Its is a state as distinct from two electrons as a
neutron is different from an electron and a proton. It is the same
di-elecro-boson as in the inner shell of the Helium atom. Its stability is
not merely in energy, but in the proper understanding of he matched inner
topology of the electrons, photons and the whole crystal environment which,
in some sense, compose it. To have any chance of understanding this sort of
thing at all one needs a theory which encompasses the electrons, the
neutrons and protons AND the beautiful electro-matter-magnetic resonant
periodic matrix in which they find themselves. All of it, all at once,
within the same theory (and not in half-a-dozen each giving a glimpse of a
bit of the problem).

Back to that new theory. The first stage is the development of solutions of
the elementary particle states on the basis of the new theory.  The present
status is that these exist for the photon (linear) and electron (toroidal)
in the theory, and that there is a model view of the hadrons as being,
essentially, trefoil knots. The di-electro-boson above was discussed for the
first time at MENDEL 2012, in the context of the exclusion principle. This
whole idea needs development - probably in the numerical modeling of
electromagnetic momentum flows within the new theory. This will be a lot of
work but has huge potential.

The development here will be highly non-trivial. Tim is an expert in this
for standard Maxwell electromagnetism and he and I have had many discussions
in the past about the possibility of doing something here. It is hard guys.
Standard e-m is hard but this is much worse. Things go round and round in
circles. Just developing an appropriate grid is going to be interesting.
There may be (and are - in part) analytic solutions to compare modeling with
the simplest cases such as the electron itself. Tim has come up with a
suggestion that there IS space in the standard development of
electromagnetism to insert a scalar and pseudoscaler terms - but we have
both been too snowed under with teaching and admin to make much progress
here. Chip has volunteered his services. Given the quality of his
interaction here I am more than tempted to take him up on this. Can you come
to Scotland? Do you Skype? It would be good to get Tim and Mayank in on this
too. Any other takers? This will be really tough - but it is linear,
calculable in principle and capable of very big rewards. This is in marked
contrast to the competition, the standard model and  various string
theories, where nothing useful in practice can be calculated at all. Even in
principle. This may be convenient (in that such theories are not easily
knocked over by experiment), but is less useful if one wishes to actually
make any useful progress. 

Coming back to photon and electron. With the photon there are many possible
experiments (to be discussed in August). One of the main engineering
benefits will come from a better understanding from combined electron-photon
states of matter. Apart from the fact that all atoms themselves are,
effectively, such states in the new theory, think about such collective
states of light and matter in the solid state. The Plasmon, polariton
polaron, magnon . pretty-much-anythingon.  One arrives here at such things
as the Luttinger liquid and the fractional Quantum Hall effect. Giant
magnetoresistance and qubits. Distributed computing and zero-energy
distributed multistate logic. 21st century electronics.   There are enormous
numbers of experiments, demonstrators and devices to be developed here. One
of my favourite themes (and another area with huge potential applications)
is to do sub-electron electronics. Any of you out there can do milliKelvin
low noise measurements? May be fun to collaborate. I think it should be
possible to put many many bits of information onto a SINGLE electron. You
heard it here first.

Next theme: electro-protons. There are two states of interest. The Hydrogen
atom and the neutron. Both, in the new theory, may be described as
pure-field (plus pivot) states. These become, in the new theory, not
strictly bound states of the electron and proton, but quite new collective
states of the underlying electro-pivot- quadrivector-magnetic even set
(field+), or, equivalently of the vector potential- angular momentum set
(current+spin). Both sets are equivalent, in that the constitutive equations
of the new theory constrain each in terms of the other in a set of coupled,
linear differential equations. Clearly, the hydrogen atom and neutron differ
in the scale and nature of the cancellation of the internal constitutive
fields.  In the hydrogen atom it is just the external e-m field. Solving the
hydrogen atom is the obvious next next step in the theory. Should not be too
hard as we already have most of the maths in place.

In the neutron and proton it a partial cancellation of the internal
constitutive fields themselves - the cancelled topology being carried by the
neutrino, of course. The internal fields are far stronger, as they contain
magnetic (stronger) as well as merely electric (weaker intrinsically)
components. This is why the electron has electric and not the dual magnetic,
charge. Magnetic satisfies itself and cancels maximally, leaving poor, weak
electric to hedgehog out radially.  This is the reason, in the new theory,
that the charged proton has lower mass than the neutral neutron: there is
more internal cancellation for the proton (hence its lower mass). It is this
resonant harmonic, field interference that is, in my view, responsible for
both the strong interaction and the Pauli exclusion principle. I talked
about this a bit at MENDEL 2012 and there is a short paper on one aspect of
this in the proceedings.

The solution of the Hydrogen atom will be interesting, but that of the
Helium atom in some senses more so. This is not only a tri-Boson in spin
(electron-Boson, Proton-Boson and Neutron-Boson), but also has Bosonic
properties in isospin.  An IsoBoson then ( I think I just made that term up
(but you never know!).  All these combine to make Helium just as inert and
just as low energy (for fusion) as it is. Coming to fusion - the theory
should have impact here too. Understanding the inner workings of the hadrons
themselves could be expected to help in engineering systems to make them
fuse. Andrew and others here know much more about this than I - but I cannot
wait to talk to you guys properly about it. This has, obviously, immense
potential application in clean energy generation and supply. Are any of the
big energy companies beating down your door to give you funding Andrew?

Sorry guys . I could go on and on, but I still have one exam to produce, if
I can, before Martin gets here tomorrow - so better get going to work soon. 

Here is a quick list of things that spring to mind in potential engineering
applications and developments that a new theory of light and matter may be
expected to help in .

New (meta)materials: room temperature supercomputers, perfect conductors
(different - no Meissner effect), distributed (robust) quantum states,
sub-electron electronics - heat removal (big problem in nanoelectronics),
trans-device communication, multistate (not binary) elements.

Energy: new energy sources, energy storage, energy delivery, energy
harvesting (on earth and in space). 

Propulsion: better understanding of nature of gravitation, space and time
for space propulsion.

Fusion. New understanding and control of nuclear processes. Practical CNF. 

Water: fresh water production - resonant impurity removal devices.

Light: new kinds of light sources. Effective 6000K nano-incandescents.

Human tech interfaces (there is a word for this but ive forgotten it):
investigate resonant - harmonic effect of such things as sense of smell
(Martin and I had an idea about this years ago - and he even allowed himself
to be a test subject for a rather scary experiment) - we have not developed
this further.

Transducers: unprecedented sensitivity due to understanding of long-range
quantum phase control. 

Information storage (memory): needs to be (quantum) distributed to be
thermally robust. Develop resonant, harmonic materials to store
combinatorially large amounts of data.

That's it for now: you'll all be able to think of lots of other things to
add to the list. better get up and get ready or I'll run into traffic .

Tootle-pip,

-J.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150312/984595be/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ElectronFromPhotonSide.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 86978 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150312/984595be/attachment-0001.jpg>