[General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism

Tue May 5 23:25:33 PDT 2015

Dear John W,

Since you say that the bell's resonance makes its sounds quantized, then
are all quantized states just resonances? Are there exceptions? If not,
then why does QM not use the classical, understandable, concept of
resonance. I have assumed that it is just the priesthood's way of assuring
that its 'flock' does not revert to the 'ol time religion'.

So, if a bell is quantized because of its mass and structure, then I
suppose that a photon can be similarly 'quantized' because of its energy
and structure. The classical concept of the soliton is no longer acceptable
notation for a physical phenomenon.

On the same basis, is a black hole quantized? Because it has a specific
'size' for a given mass, and 'rings' when excited (is this an incorrect
conclusion from some of the recent galactic density distributions
attributed to the big bang/), it should be classed as a quantum bell.

A deeper question (not just one of semantics) is how can one represent
resonances on a potential-energy diagram? The 1/r coulomb potential is a
straight line on a log-log plot of potential energy vs radius. Is there any
way of correctly representing (e.g. by 'dips') the total energy minima
associated with resonant states of the electron orbitals? In other words,
how does one relate energy and resonances? This issue is one that I have
occasionally been thinking about related to both electrons and photons. I
assume that it is necessary to plot total energy (or some other form)
rather than just potential energy. Or, is it sufficient to include all
forms of potential energy?

QM often states that the atomic ground state is the minimum energy level.
Yet, obviously, the Coulomb potential of the nucleus goes much deeper. QM
claims that, by this statement, it overcomes the classical dilemma of the
electron spiraling into the nucleus. Classical physics can easily solve the
problem by use of conservation of energy and momentum and inclusion of
photons with their specific characteristics. QM, by not including the
photon in the Schrodinger equation, must solve the problem by mathematics
and fiat, not by physics.

We have to be careful that we do not fall into the same trap as QM did with
the atom, when we try to define the photon and the electron.

Andrew

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:56 AM, John Williamson <
John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hello Andrew,
>
> You ask such good questions!
>
> Yes of course it is - to the fundamental frequency and to its harmonics.
> Quantisation comes down to something that simple. In the paper I circulated
> the quantisation is not put in (as it is not for the bell), but comes out
> (as it does for the church bell) as a consequence of the nature of the
> object/ objects concerned (emitter and absorber for the photon resonance).
>
> Everything in quantisation comes down, fundamentally, to coherence,
> resonance and harmony.
>
> I gave a talk entitled "How the universe listens to itself:spherical
> music" at a conference back in 2009 - in which I used the analogy of a
> spherical bell (and its inverse) to explain the photon inter-action. I've
> attached a pdf of the slides for the talk.
>
> This will become part of the "interaction with the absorber" paper - if I
> ever get round to it.
>
> Cheers, John.
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Andrew
> Meulenberg [mules333 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:57 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism
>
>    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>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150506/249de8b0/attachment.htm>