[General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Chip,

Your 'thought' is clearly expressed and your caveat is new to me and, I
think, important. Do you know of any exceptions?

Thx,

Andrew
_ _ _ _

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All
>
>
>
> A thought.
>
>
>
> Several days ago there was a discussion of electron spin, and it was
> stated that the electron spins in a spherical manner.
>
> While the electron "at rest" may actually spin in a spherical manner,
> perhaps a tumbling toroid, -- experiment using electron beams in a magnetic
> fields indicate that the spin is principally perpendicular to the direction
> of travel. The electrons travel in a helical path in a magnetic field. It
> seems this is due to the effects of their orientation, spin, and magnetic
> moment.
>
>
>
> Richard has pointed out that we will seldom, if ever, encounter an
> electron "at rest" because they are almost always traveling, and it seems
> they travel oriented with the principal spin axis parallel to the direction
> of travel.
>
>
>
> One caveat is that we have to remember that when attempting to measure
> electron spin, we are almost always instead measuring the ratio of the
> angular momentum to the magnetic moment, with consideration for mass
> naturally included. (Stern-Gerlach type experiments.)
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark,
> Martin van der
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:59 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane
> Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism
>
>
>
> Andrew, John, all
>
>
>
> John W is quite right as well, just a small remark on the hydrogen atom.
>
> By the virial theorem, for a 1/r potential, potential energy is minus two
> times the kinetic energy and kinetic energy is equal to the binding energy
> (13.6 eV in the ground state).
>
> For the structure of the atom there are three conditions, one of
> electromagnetic, and two of inertial nature.
>
> 1) The coulomb potential runs to minus infinity, that is very deep. It
> comes from the charge of proton and electron.
>
> 2) Then the centrifugal force (depends on mass of proton and electron)
>  must balance the Coulomb force, this could have been in a continuum of
> orbits if the electron and proton were just particles (without a wave
> nature) (see gravitation and solar system for an exact analogy),
>
> 3) The mass of proton and electron set the scale of the de Broglie
> wavelength (which, incidentally, is exactly the same for proton and
> electron in the bound state), and hence the bound state has a finite size,
> 0.1 nm diameter for the ground state. The particle's waves must interfere
> constructively within the boundary conditions: quantized energy levels
> appear.
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
>
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
>
>
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
> 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* woensdag 6 mei 2015 11:12
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane
> Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism
>
>
>
> Hihi,
>
> A lot of questions there Andrew.
>
> All quantised means is "countable".
>
> Yes there are exceptions. Mostly exceptions! The quantised electron charge
> comes, for me, from an interaction rate. Hence the reason all charges in
> contact have the same value. Other quantum numbers may just be an intrinsic
> sign- such as the lepton number difference between the positron and the
> electron. Quantised states in atoms and quantum wells are resonant states,
> indeed. In the FQHE these are bound quasi-particle-flux-quantum states.
> These are more musical ratios, than integer numbers. Quantised conductance,
> for example, is simply a rate-per-single-electron. The popular press and
> Wikipedia tends to sweep all the unknowns into one big unknown. Thta thing
> which cannot be known - the great UNCERTAINTY! Assigning a quantum number
> to something is tantamount to putting all your lack of understanding into a
> single number. Too much of this kind of shit passes as understanding!
>
> The ground state of the Hydrogen atom is that energy where potential=
> kinetic, and the de Broglie wavelength of the electron equals the de
> Broglie wavelength of the proton. A single wavelength with periodic
> boundary conditions - for both! What a beautiful resonance! Simple, singing
> resonance - with no dissipation. Physics tries indeed to mystify this, but
> it is really a simple congruence. Engineers know better!
>
> Indeed the Coulomb potential goes way down (as you argue so beautifully in
> your paper). Shorter lengths, however, are less than one wavelength and
> hence, though they could be resonant, actually at a higher energy, through
> interference. The one wavelength state is the ground state. For this state
> the Coulomb field, cancelled outside the Bohr radius corresponds exactly to
> the 13.6 eV binding energy of the Hydrogen atom. All very simple and very
> beautiful!
>
> Martin is, as usual, right in (pretty much) everything he says. Especially
> in that it is very important!
>
> Regards, John W.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark,
> Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:48 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane
> Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I have good answers to most of your questions, but have no time right now
> to write them down,
> we must come back to this, it is very important indeed.
>
> In any case it comes down to the following:
>
> ·         Quantization comes from any wave equation with imposed boundary
> conditions.
>
> ·         Uncertainty is no more than what the Fourier limit tells you.
>
> ·         Copenhagen interpretation is Copenhagen mystification: although
> it is not very wrong at the simple level, it takes away any possibility for
> improvement by dogma.
>
> ·         Wave/particle dualism is the consequence of special relativity,
> see Louis de Broglie.
>
> ·         The measurement problem  for the smallest things has to with 3
> things: (in)coherence (=phase information of the wavefunction), intrinsic
> disturbance: the probe is non negligible, and the Fourier limit.
>
> ·         There is only one crucial difference with classical mechanics:
> non-local action in EPR-like experiments.
>
> The latter is wider spread than quantum mechanics. Understanding
> space-time, non-locality and the connection/blend of fields with space-time
> is the least understood bit of physics.
>
> I have to go!
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
>
>
> Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>
> Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>
>
>
> Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>
> High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>
> Prof. Holstlaan 4
>
> 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>
> Tel: +31 40 2747548
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Andrew Meulenberg
> *Sent:* woensdag 6 mei 2015 8:26
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane
> Mandray
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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 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/20150506/1aa4b587/attachment.htm>