<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.balloontextchar0
{mso-style-name:balloontextchar;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Hi All<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>A thought.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Several days ago there was a discussion of electron spin, and it was stated that the electron spins in a spherical manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#333333;background:white'> </span><span style='color:black'>type experiments.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Chip<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:59 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Andrew, John, all<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>John W is quite right as well, just a small remark on the hydrogen atom.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>For the structure of the atom there are three conditions, one of electromagnetic, and two of inertial nature.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>1) The coulomb potential runs to minus infinity, that is very deep. It comes from the charge of proton and electron.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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),<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cheers, Martin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DE style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span lang=DE style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> woensdag 6 mei 2015 11:12<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hihi,<br><br>A lot of questions there Andrew.<br><br>All quantised means is "countable".<br><br>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!<br><br>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!<br><br>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!<br><br>Martin is, as usual, right in (pretty much) everything he says. Especially in that it is very important!<br><br>Regards, John W.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF56110><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark@philips.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 06, 2015 8:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Dear Andrew,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I have good answers to most of your questions, but have no time right now to write them down,<br>we must come back to this, it is very important indeed.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>In any case it comes down to the following:</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Quantization comes from any wave equation with imposed boundary conditions.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Uncertainty is no more than what the Fourier limit tells you.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Copenhagen interpretation is Copenhagen mystification: although it is not very wrong at the simple level, it takes away any possibility for improvement by dogma.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Wave/particle dualism is the consequence of special relativity, see Louis de Broglie.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol;color:#1F497D'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>There is only one crucial difference with classical mechanics: non-local action in EPR-like experiments.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I have to go!</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Cheers, Martin</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=DE style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Dr. Martin B. van der Mark</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:navy'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Prof. Holstlaan 4</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy'>Tel: +31 40 2747548</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> woensdag 6 mei 2015 8:26<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey; Kyran Williamson; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Dear John W,<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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'.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:56 AM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>Hello Andrew,<br><br>You ask such good questions!<br><br>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).<br><br>Everything in quantisation comes down, fundamentally, to coherence, resonance and harmony.<br><br>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.<br><br>This will become part of the "interaction with the absorber" paper - if I ever get round to it.<br><br>Cheers, John.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'> General [general-bounces+john.williamson=</span><a href="mailto:glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>] on behalf of Andrew Meulenberg [</span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>mules333@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black'>]<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 05, 2015 1:57 PM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Quantisation of classical electromagnetism</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>Dear John W. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Andrew<br><br>_____________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:24 PM, John Williamson <</span><a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk" target="_blank">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a><span style='color:black'>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Good morning everyone,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>First problem in creating any new theory is where to start? On which basis?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Lets just list a few of the possible starting candidate frameworks (some within the umbrella of the “standard model”):</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>1.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Shroedinger quantum mechanics</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>2.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Dirac relativistic quantum mechanics</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>3.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Quantum electrodynamics</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>4.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>General relativity</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>5.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Special relativity</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>6.</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;color:black'> </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Maxwell electromagnetism</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>The first, while it has many practical applications, is too simple as it is is non-relativistic. Conclusion-too uncertain. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Now to the fifth. All good. Not much in it though – per se. Conclusion: not special enough.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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?</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><br><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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<a name="14d277a41bfb1490_14d231205dfa1ed8__GoBac"></a>. It would be very embarrassing to miss an important reference to this. </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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? </span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Times;color:black'>Regards, John W.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:black'><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at </span><a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><span style='color:black'><br><a href="</span><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a><span style='color:black'>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:gray'>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.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>