[General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism

Tue May 5 05:57:54 PDT 2015

Dear John W.

Your paper looks very interesting. However, I am going to force myself to
put off reading it until I after I catch up on my other obligations.
Nevertheless, a quick question. Is a church bell quantized?

Andrew

_____________________________________________

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:24 PM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Good morning everyone,
>
> None of us gets the whole picture- yet. We, however, may each understand
> some aspects of science, which need to be resolved within the group (and
> the rest of the science community for that matter) as a whole. I think
> that, if we want to make progress, as a group, to making a collective
> effort to eventually solve Hilbert's sixth problem and understand how
> everything works, we need a proper theoretical basis with which to
> calculate and with which to model. Maxwell theory is good to a point, but
> is not quantized and does not have a mechanism to confine light to go round
> and round in circles in our models. We need a better theory.
>
> By a theory here I do not mean some loose idea with some nice consequences
> and able to calculate a number or two (like the WvdM model for example!).
> To properly understand how things work it is not good enough to just
> flag-up the problems of this or that model - all models have problems (the
> standard model more than most!)- we need to put-up and develop a real
> theories and then try to knock them down with experiment. If they fail-
> just make up a new theory. That is the scientific method.
>
> First problem in creating any new theory is where to start? On which basis?
>
> Some of you may not have yet come across Hilbert's sixth. It is one of the
> famous set of problems he posed at the turn of the century before last
> which remains unsolved. Briefly it is finding an axiomatic, logical and
> complete mathematical system that precisely parallels reality - just and no
> more.  In other words finding a mathematics which precisely describes all
> of physics.
>
> Coming back to the task in hand. Physics is now so vast that there are
> many possible starting bases. All may give some insight into the truth, but
> none yet solves Hilbert's sixth. I will not bother with theories set up, by
> design, to be outwith the boundaries of that which is measureable
> experimentally as I see no point in starting from somewhere where one is
> already lost. Others may play that game if they wish.
>
> Lets just list a few of the possible starting candidate frameworks (some
> within the umbrella of the "standard model"):
>
> 1.     Shroedinger quantum mechanics
>
> 2.     Dirac relativistic quantum mechanics
>
> 3.     Quantum electrodynamics
>
> 4.     General relativity
>
> 5.     Special relativity
>
> 6.     Maxwell electromagnetism
>
> These all stand on their own - of course. Any final theory should also be
> manifestly consistent- at some level of simplification - with all of the
> above.
>
> Now comes my personal view of each as a candidate starting frameworks on
> which to make further progress. The conclusions at the end of each are not
> definitive - just my personal opinion at present. Each sentence starting
> "Conclusion" contains a pun, which is intended.
>
> The first, while it has many practical applications, is too simple as it
> is is non-relativistic. Conclusion-too uncertain.
>
> The second is a good possibility, however I think it is too complicated in
> one respect and too simple in another. Too complicated in that it contains
> BOTH a non-commutative (Dirac) algebra AND yet uses the far simpler complex
> algebra in solutions. I think its starting point has already passed the
> proper basis point and has implicitly added something which is just not
> there in reality. I think it contains a great deal of truth but that the
> added complexity (pun) makes for confusion. It confused Dirac himself (as
> stated in his famous textbook by himself). If he was confused then what
> chance have any of the rest of us got. This stand-point is backed up by the
> fact that, despite being a corner-stone of the "Standard Model", it has not
> yet been used in any practical engineering application at all (delighted if
> anyone can pose a counter-example by the way). Conclusion-too complex.
>
> Now the third, quantum electrodynamics, looks good. It is not (yet) in
> conflict with any known experiment within its realm of validity.  Indeed
> this is the starting point for many. Personally, having worked with it back
> in the eighties in develping (parts of) big monte-carlo programmes
> (incorporating both QED and QCD) - I do not think this is the right answer.
> The problem is that it has neither a detailed, microscopic dynamics of the
> charges which are its sources, nor of the photon which is, for it the
> exchange particle responsible for electromagnetism. For it, the photon is
> that thing that carries the electromagnetic interaction more than a
> particle in its own right. I do not see how to make it work starting from
> its starting points. Lots of other folk (much smarter than me) have been
> trying just that for many years without success. Good luck folk!
> Conclusion-I think folk just do not get the point.
>
> On to the fourth. This is also good, also consistent with all of
> experiment (within its realm of validity). Could be made to work. Again,
> many have tried. Wheeler made a good attempt with Geometro-dynamics. Any
> new theory had better be consistent with it in the weak limit. I think it
> is still missing its heart and foundation though. Conclusion- it is just
> too weak.
>
> Now to the fifth. All good. Not much in it though - per se. Conclusion:
> not special enough.
>
> Now to the sixth. This is often neglected as being old-hat, but (as
> Chandra has said) it is also consistent with all of experiment within its
> realm of validity. It is, and always was fully (special) relativistic. This
> is at least more special then than the preceding candidate. There is just
> more in it. The main deficiency -up till now - is that it has been missing
> a proper means of quantizing it and a proper wave-function for the photon.
> Conclusion: the area seems a good field from which to start - just need to
> properly investigate its boundaries and find a proper means to quantize it.
>
> On this theme, I have attached a paper, containing a few speculations of
> my own, to set myself up to be knocked down on anything which is too
> speculative, ill-informed or downright wrong! It explains and expands on
> the theory presented at FFP14 last year and outlined in the paper I
> circulated earlier. The paper as it stands can be shortened as it contains
> some repetition and a quite a lot of background analogy (such as pretty
> much all of the discussion on page 7, for example). I've decided to leave
> this in for the moment as it may help understanding. There are also other
> things that should probably go in if I have the time - such as a
> wavefunction separating the polarization and rotation-horizon parts of the
> wave function. Am still working on that.
>
> This was intended as a draft paper for the upcoming conference in San
> Diego, even though it is more about the photon itself than the electron or
> its inter-actions, so I was thinking of withdrawing it and replacing it
> with one on the problems of causality in absorber interaction theory (to
> address the problems raised by, amongst others, Chip). I'm re-considering
> this, as I think it provides some of the background theory for the other
> paper on the electron nature. An alternative may be to place it elsewhere
> within the conference as it is more relevant to the photon itself than to
> the electron. What do you think, Chandra and Andrew?
>

> I think it is correct that it has limited value to try to understand one
> thing (the electron) in terms of another thing which is, perhaps, even more
> poorly understood (the photon). I agree as well that we need to address the
> underlying root-cause of quantisation if we are really to understand what
> is going on. Understanding the photon is what the paper aims to do
>
> I'm a bit shy, in the present company, of jumping in with both feet here.
> This is not really my field. I know more about (and have published widely
> in) elementary particle physics and solid state physics (and I think this
> helps in some respects) but am by no means an optics or a photonics guy. I
> am relying on you all (especially people such as Chandra, Robert and Tim)
> to put me straight on this. I do not want to step on everyones toes! The
> paper attached contains a development of the Maxwell equations to include
> dynamical mass, dual mass and angular momentum terms. The development here
> looks pretty simple to me. Has it been done before? Please, all of you,
> fill me in here. It would be very embarrassing to miss an important
> reference to this.
>
> There is also an argument in the paper as to why classical
> electromagnetism must be quantized in its travelling-wave solutions. I
> think this must be new as I'm sure I should have heard of it otherwise. Am
> I wrong? There is also a fully relativistic, quantized, Schroedinger-like,
> first-order electromagnetic wave-function. Again- have such things ever
> been studied elsewhere?
>
> The paper, as it stands, does not yet contain a calculation of  hbar from
> first principles - though I am working on this as well as with a more
> advanced 4D wave-function and in conjunction with the polarization
> discussion and have what I think may be an answer - though that lies also
> within the realms of physical chemistry where I am even less at home. If I
> cannot sort it out before August it could, possibly, become a topic for
> discussion.
>
> I will circulate the draft paper to other people in other groups as well
> (some on the mailing above). Another thing I would be grateful for is
> suggestions as to which peer-reviewed journal would be an appropriate place
> to submit this work for a more general circulation.
>
> Regards, John W.
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150505/9c08672c/attachment.htm>