Topological Solitons of Ellipsoid Field - Particle Menagerie Correspondence by Jarek Duda

Hi Jarek

You: The problem of photon dissipation is indeed one of the most fundamental questions of physics, but I don't see how preferring a system of reference could help here?

The motion of a photon (or better of a wave of light) has to be referred to a medium, i.e., the quantum vacuum or the zero-point field (ZPF) itself which can be considered as the PSR. Since all particles (solitons) are embedded in the ZPF they all move relative to it. The Casimir effect can be considered as a proof of the existence of the ZPF (or vacuum or aether, the name is not important).

You: What we need is a concrete model of how this EM soliton looks like instead.

I think light can be treated like a classical wave, there is no need to modify it at all but I do not know if this version is compatible with the topological formalism.

You: Personally I don't see... ... now it's time to find concrete model of these entities ("breathing" solitons).

I agree, we have to try to get a conceptual and theoretical framework where to put all this ideas in a coherent way.

You: I really tried to read your essay but it's just too philosophical for me.

I agree that it is too philosophical but one has to build not only a strong mathematical framework but also a philosophical one so both appear consistent. We have to work out the philosophical principles and with this as a basis we can work out the mathematical formalism. Commonly people work the opposite way, first, they look for a mathematical formalism, proposing fields, potential, lagrangians, etc. (e.g. string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc), and later try to find a physical interpretation to the mathematical outcome. But many theoretical physicists have realized that this heuristic procedure has not been effective for the last 30 years (physics crisis). And I believe, among other things, this one of the motives of this contest. Around these days, Vesselin Petkov (one of the contestants) and some of his collaborators are about to inaugurate the Herman Minkowski Institute. One of the aims of this institute is to recover the old way of doing physics, i.e. including the philosophical analysis for the development of the theory, you should take a look at it here. Physicists are worried why there has not been a major breakthrough for the last 80 or 90 years since the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Cheers

Israel

Dear Israel,

Ok, I think I see your point now - I apology for not looking closer before. So the main point is that if there was some fixed velocity to some medium: aether in sense of a fluid filling the Universe, the Michelson-Morley experiment wouldn't realize it. Indeed underwater analogue of this experiment also wouldn't indicate such movement - we would need some "flowmeter" (e.g. pipe with turbine) for that. Could we build some "flowmeter" for hypothetical eather? I'm open, but honestly rather very skeptical.

The main reason is that I don't think imagining fluid filling the Universe is the proper intuition - field theories should be rather imagined that the space(-time) is rather a crystal with infinitesimally small lattice constant. In aether view you need space plus the filling fluid, while in field theories you have just space with some internal degree of freedom choosing values in each point - like deflection of atoms in lattice crystal, or values of the stress tensor in each point - which can be smoothen and can be seen as direct picture of ellipsoid field I use.

Considerations looking very similar to ellipsoid field can be already found in fluids: liquid crystals. Precisely, if the molecule is asymmetric, it can be represented as ellipsoid with three different axes - these liquid crystals are called biaxial nematics and there are used quite similar equations, but thermodynamical (parabolic not hyperbolic). Another reason I didn't even mentioned them in the essay (besides length limit), is that I don't see a way to make it viscosity-free, so twist-like waves would always dissipate there...

You have also mentioned Casimir effect as argument for such fluid - I disagree: this energy shouldn't be seen as energy of the lowest state of potential well, but as energy of the well itself: invested while forming it.

Your succeeding argument is dark energy/matter, but I also disagree - you can get the same in crystal/field view. I (and prof. Faber) see them as just thermal energy - we can observe 2.7K EM thermal noise (CMB), but there are also other interactions and their degrees of freedom should also be somehow thermalized - carrying a lot of energy we cannot directly detect. Dynamics inside energy minimum of Higgs potential is electromagnetism: massless Goldstone bosons - the other degrees of freedom are massive and should be also thermalized. Prof. Faber call them alpha waves, I call them deformational dof (of shape of ellipsoid).

You: "I think light can be treated like a classical wave, there is no need to modify it at all but I do not know if this version is compatible with the topological formalism." What do you mean by classical wave? Standard plane waves are completely incompatible with that optical photon can be produced by a single atom and then after years absorbed by a single atom - you need a mechanism to keep this energy localized: to make it soliton.

What direct or indirect consequences would you expect from such "flowing aether"? If there are none (like in field theory picture), maybe it's not worth considering?

Cheers,

Jarek

Dear Jarek

I haven't realized about your last reply. I am sorry for this.

You: Could we build some "flowmeter" for hypothetical eather? I'm open, but honestly rather very skeptical.

The problem of detection is really complicated but in principle it seems to be feasible. My reference 17 (Eq. 14) gives a clue. There are some other plausible proposals for its detection, see C. Christov Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028_e2044

As you say, in the present view, space-time is a continuous empty geometrical vessel filled with fields (gauge, fermion, Higgs, electromagnetic). If this view has been useful, I think the opposite should work much better. One can conceive the fluid as space itself and the fields as states of this fluid with solitons (particles) moving through it. So there is no need of assuming space and the fluid as you imagine. Instead, the fluid plays the roll of space and at the same time of medium for solitons and fields.

You: Another reason I didn't even mentioned them in the essay (besides length limit), is that I don't see a way to make it viscosity-free, so twist-like waves would always dissipate there.

Well I think it is natural to conceive dissipation if space is assumed as a fluid, though dissipation will be so tiny that for low energies can be neglected. At higher energies or cosmological distances the dissipation certainly will play an important role. This is my point and this is why I having asking you about dissipation for photon-like solitons.

You: You have also mentioned Casimir effect as argument for such fluid --I disagree: this energy shouldn't be seen as energy of the lowest state of potential well, but as energy of the well itself: invested while forming it.

I haven't work out the idea, but you may be interested in taking a look at the essay of Luis de la Pena and Cetto. They discuss the zero-point field energy in more detail.

You: "I think light can be treated like a classical wave, there is no need to modify it at all but I do not know if this version is compatible with the topological formalism." What do you mean by classical wave? Standard plane waves are completely incompatible with that optical photon can be produced by a single atom and then after years absorbed by a single atom -- you need a mechanism to keep this energy localized: to make it soliton.

Just remember that in reality atoms do not emit light at one single frequency but at different frequencies centered around an average frequency. Although in theoretical matters (for simplification) one usually deals with single frequencies in reality what is measured is an envelop of waves with different frequencies. In the field of optics (or x-ray spectroscopy, etc.) this is very well known, nobody has ever measured a monochromatic wave. The distribution of energy as function of frequency is always localized in a finite region of space and never resembles a Dirac function (one-single frequency). One classical example is the Gaussian packet. This same idea is used in QM. By the way the conception of space as a fluid can make QM local and give a non-probabilistic interpretation to the wave function, so all the mysteries of this theory automatically disappear. This is in relation to your question:

What direct or indirect consequences would you expect from such "flowing aether?

Physicists have been attempting to unify for the last 30 or 40 years GR and QM and many people question whether one of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. I think that the topic of this contest has a lot to do with this problem. As far as I can see considering space as a fluid could solve many of the most important problems in physics but at the high cost of not only reinterpreting well established facts (such as the CMBR, the expansion of the universe, dark matter, etc.) but also dropping GR. As you know relativity treats space as mere geometry and it seems that this view is utterly incompatible with mine (see Christov article).

Cheers

Israel

Dear Israel,

I have looked at the Christov paper and in the only relevant experiment he intends to violate Lorentz invariance by electromagnetism in simple few body systems - you will not convince me to something like that.

I agree to use stress tensor like Cauchy - it is exactly where I get all particles and their dynamics here from (due to the only nonstandard concept added here: Higgs-like potential), but the PDE's are Lorentz invariant and so if one gets violation in their consequences, it means he has made a mistake somewhere, like forgetting that boosts add magnetic field to charges.

The only possibility I can take seriously is a flow of some underlying physics, to which the stress tensor is effective level - but please besides references to difficult to obtain papers, briefly describe concepts/experiments you refer to ...

Cheers,

Jarek

Dear Jarek

As I argue in my essay, the scientific value of a theory resides in the power to explain and reproduce the body of experimental evidence under consideration. One should distinguish between Lorentz invariance (LI) and Special Relativity (SR). LI can be derived (as Lorentz himself did in 1904, and many others even nowadays) from the assumption that there exists a medium for the propagation of light waves (what I called space itself but seen as a fluid not as geometry) which can be assumed to be the preferred system of reference (PSR). This means that the existence of the medium does not contradict LI (This is precisely the discussion of my essay). Let us called, Lorentz approach, Lorentz theory (LT).

On the other hand, SR makes no assumptions as to the medium for light. Actually, SR accepts LI but rejects per se the PSR. In other words, we have two theories that explain the same physical phenomena. However, each theory has its problems. The former has been forgotten because it has not been possible to detect the medium. This does not mean however that the medium does not exist. And the latter, as it is well known within the circles of the philosophy of physics, has logical inconsistencies (paradoxes) such as the Supple paradox, the clock paradox, etc. --unfortunately, most physicists do not even acknowledge them.

So, if both theories explain the same phenomena, in principle, it turns out to be irrelevant which one we chose to work out the calculations of a problem under consideration. Einstein considered the aether superfluous and moved on with his approach despite the paradoxes. These paradoxes could be ignored --as it is actually done-- since they do not interfere with the theory predictions. I have no problem with this.

Nowadays there are many problems in physics, in a certain sense, it is widely recognized that theoretical physics has been in a state of stagnation, no major breakthroughs have occurred for the last 30 years. As time goes by the experimental evidence piles up and adds more to the puzzle. So, some years ago I started to carefully analyze and study the history and the foundations of physics. I found that LT is still valid and that it could be still useful to solve many problems in physics if the medium is reintroduced (you may wish to see my discussion with Daryl Janzen in his entry and mine in relation to the physical interpretation of the redshift). So, in the present state of things, if I were asked what theory, i.e. LT or SR, I would chose to work out the calculations, I would chose LT. Why? because it has no paradoxes and the idea that there is a medium it is helpful to some our present problems. In 1951 Dirac and later in 1965 strongly suggested that the situation in physics in 1905 was quite different than the situation 50 or 60 years later and that the notion of aether could be reintroduced. The Cassimir effect, the Lamb shift and many other experiments strongly suggest that the vacuum has an internal structure.

Certainly, physics has changed since the sixties and we have to update some conceptions. During this investigation I come across with Christov's work in which I found some plausible results. First, based on the assumption that space is a fluid and applying the theory of fluid and wave mechanics, he succeeded in deriving Maxwell equations and Lorentz force formula as integral parts of a major formulation (Eq. 17). This is clearly of great significance. Keep in mind that in the present view Maxwell equations (the classical Lagrangian of the electromagnetic field was inferred from Maxwell equations but is not derived from a higher principle) and the Lorentz force are empirical constructs not derived from any physical principle. Moreover his formulation reproduces the relativistic effects, i.e., length contraction, time dilation, etc., and pave the way for the introduction of solitons as natural ingredients. And above all his proposal fulfills with the principle that the laws of physics should be the same in any system of reference. As he explains in section 6, there is one caveat. Experiments do not measure absolute magnitudes (he called them material variables) but only relative ones (this is why SR has been so successful) and for such reason he reformulates his model in Euler variables. Therefore, since his model explains physical phenomena --just as relativity does--, unifies electromagnetism (he went further and unified gravity and QM), fulfills the principle of covariance and is free from paradoxes I do not see any objection. Your comment "...he intends to violate Lorentz invariance by electromagnetism in simple few body systems..." causes me confusion, why do you argue that his experiment violates LI?

Likewise, I did not understand this part very well: PDE's are Lorentz invariant and so if one gets violation in their consequences, it means he has made a mistake somewhere, like forgetting that boosts add magnetic field to charges. I would appreciate if you could elaborate a little bit further. Do you mean that all equations in physics are PDE and that they should all be Lorentz invariant? How is he violating the fact that boost add magnetic field to charges? I do not clearly see the connection, since he is complying with LI.

With respect to your last paragraph, if you are interested in the detection of the medium I would suggest that you take a look at my reference 17, Eq. 3.14 shows that in principle an inertial observer can determine its absolute speed. I do not know what other concepts/experiments you mean.

Cheers

Israel

Dear Jarek,

Of course mathematics is a good tool for describing of phenomena with the help of formulas. But the problem is with the real models of particles. When the model is wrong mathematics can not help. See substantial model of electron in § 14 of the book: The physical theories and infinite nesting of matter. Perm, 2009-2012, 858 p. ISBN 978-5-9901951-1-0. By the way the problem of electron spin is explained in the book.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Sergey,

I don't understand your point - if you are implying that my model is wrong, I would be really grateful if you point me some discrepancy with the reality?

Maxwell's equations allow for any charge, while we know that they appear only in integer multiplicities of elementary charge - we need to reformulate/improve Maxwell's equations to have this quantization already deeply written - it was done by prof. Faber: http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/361/1/012022

Now charges can appear only in portions: particles (and have mass) ... but only electron-like.

What I propose is its simple expansion to get all particles as we know - and I'm open to other such expansions.

Jarek

Dear Jarek,

In the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay) neutron stars at star level of matter are analogue of nucleons at particle level of matter. In a neutron star a lot of protons and electrons. But for the star level of matter there is stellar charge as a maximum charge of a star, see Stellar constants . In the average we can say that charge of star objects composed of neutron star must be integer in units of stellar charge. But in reality the charge of one star is never equal to charge of another star, the coincidence has small probability. The same is for the charge of a proton which consists of charges of numerous particles in substance of the proton. So I want say that elementary charge of electron, proton and other particle is approximation, in reality the particles have somewhat different charges.

Sergey Fedosin

But the particles have charge being integer multiplicity of elementary charge (or 1/3) - this quantization is the most essential fact to understand particles. Quantization itself makes charges need to come in portions - became particles.

Before nesting further particles in electron, start with improving electromagnetism to have quantization written (e.g. like prof. Faber) ...

Hi Jarek,

Just read and loved your essay "... there are three basic families of soltions, simplest charge will topologically need to have spin, ... While dynamics of rotations of the original axis will correspond to electromagnetic interaction ... the additional perpendicular rotation corresponds to quantum phase, enforced by the soliton to constantly rotate as for de Broglie's clock of particle."

I liked your drawings and if you ever consider trying to animate them in real time, please send me a note.

You can see some examples of my animations in the links at my essay #1306.

Regards, Ed

Dear Jarek,

This is a fascinating paper; the ideas involved are very pleasing aesthetically. It's very different from my own ideas about fundamental physics, but I wouldn't be at all disappointed if your ideas turned out to be right. A few remarks and questions.

1. Do Hopf fibrations play any role here? Adding an S^1 degree of freedom to S^2 immediately suggests this.

2. Have you looked at the essays by Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga and Jerzy Krol? They discuss another (also aesthetically pleasing) "pure manifold" idea about fundamental physics: exotic smoothness structures.

3. Given your information theory background, you might find my essay interesting, although as I said, the ideas are much different.

Thanks for the great read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your comments. I have looked at your brave essay about rejecting most of assumptions and starting with new ones. Personally I prefer approach of making small steps - basing and comparing to known physics, and really deeply understanding their consequences.

For example we know that electromagnetism is generally right, but it disagrees with nature by allowing for any charges, while the nature allows only for integer multiplicities of elementary charge - correcting/reformulating electromagnetism to have included this fundamental principle was made by prof. Faber in natural way - make that Gaussian law counts topological charge (Hopf number). This improvement itself makes charges appear in portions - became particles. But there is something missing - some expansion is needed, so I've started with experimenting with adding single dof - and using just kind of anisotropic stress tensor seems to fit perfectly to recreate our particle menagerie and their dynamics...

About e.g. Hopf fibrations, prof. Faber uses quaternions in his representation and told me he experimented with octonions. I just assume a simple field and try to understand consequences to topological structures it can create and their dynamics.

I've looked at Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga and Jerzy Krol essays, but similarly to yours, I see them too abstract - there is a lot of a general talk these days, but what we need to fight with the orthodox physics, is a concrete working microscopic model which can complement the Standard Model.

Thanks,

Jarek

ps. I see causality is one of your rejected assumptions - there is extremely powerful Walborn's version of delayed quantum erasure you might be interested ...

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Please feel free to ask question if you don't understand something. I would be also greatful for remarks related to my essay (in opposite to your previous one).

Jarek

Dear Jarek,

Thanks for the link... I do find things like this interesting. There were a lot of popular articles last year about a psychology experiment that supposedly demonstrated precognition; interesting, but I never took it seriously. I did repeat the experiment myself for fun, but of course got the expected answer.

Just to clarify: I certainly do NOT reject causality; rather, my entire approach (causal metric hypothesis) is based on taking causality to be fundamental. I do reject manifolds as fundamental, and there are certainly good physical reasons for doubting the infinite divisibility of space, but the principle reason is because they possess properties that seem physically irrelevant or even absurd (see Banach-Tarski paradox, for instance).

My view is that the physical ideas should be simple and well-motivated (e.g., cause and effect), and the mathematics should be whatever it has to be to get the job done. I believe many scientists view continuum manifolds as "natural" out of habit because the structures involved are often mathematically convenient enough to permit nice, exact, combinatorial-type calculations. I think this is partly "anthropocentric:" our brains "like" manifolds, but automatically protest at a causal structure with even a few thousand elements, even though examples of the latter are all over the place.

Oh well... I wouldn't much mind if I were wrong about manifolds: most of my mathematical work deals with them! Your model will be wonderful if it works out. Take care,

Ben

Dear Ben,

About causality, what I believe in is the Lagrangian mechanics we use from QFT to GRT. It gives very clear time symmetric picture, for example through action optimization formulation: the present is the equilibrium between past and future - both are equally important.

We have natural intuition of time asymmetry, there is no doubt in the 2nd law, but the fundamental equations are time/CPT symmetric. It means the asymmetry is a property of the specific solution we live in: relatively close to Big Bang having everything in one place - low entropy and so creating entropy gradient. It also started reason-result chain leading to our intuition.

Much better controlled situation (than precognition) to search for this symmetry is e.g. quantum erasure, especially in configuration we can later control the earlier outcome I've linked.

And I'm not saying that your approach is wrong, but that you should make it more predictive for comparison with the reality.

Thanks,

Jarek

ps. Here is great thought experiment to het intuition about this time-symmetry: GRT doesn't forbid nonorientable spacetime: with time-reversing loop ...

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Sergey,

I'm not here ... I'm not doing science for 0-10 score, but to find a better understanding. I'm here for discussion - counting e.g. for a single constructing counter-argument to my reflections ...

Dear Jarek,

You're absolutely right... I will certainly have to connect with what's already established for it to ultimately be good for anything. I've been thinking about this in isolation (not self-imposed, you understand!) for only about 3 years, though, so I do ask for a bit of a honeymoon!

Thanks for the link... I personally view these things as indications of possible shortcomings in GR, but I may be oversimplifying. Take care,

Ben