hijack from Similarity between particle physics and macroscopic quantum phenomena like fluxons?

[joigus]

36 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

What is the purpose of inviting in even yet more conceptualisations when we have too many of them in physics of electricity ??  !! 

Too many conceptualisations? Which ones do you have in mind?

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

Too many conceptualisations? Which ones do you have in mind?

First & foremost , these very Magnetons and Fluxions , Sir . .. . .. .. . . .

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

First & foremost , these very Magnetons and Fluxions , Sir . .. . .. .. . . .

I meant those in the theory of electromagnetism. You seem to think something is not needed in Maxwell's theory. You said:

46 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

we have too many of them in physics of electricity ??  !! 

(My emphasis.)

[studiot]

First and foremost fluxions are something Newton invented to do with calculus.

We are talking about fluxons..

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by studiot

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

I meant those in the theory of electromagnetism. You seem to think something is not needed in Maxwell's theory. You said:

(My emphasis.)

Was it Maxwell who invented up Magnetons , Fluxions , Non-linear and dot-dependent Zeeman splitting ,  minimal coupling , Abrikosov vortices , quantum dot arrays , bulk g-factors ,  etc   etc  . .  ..  .  and many many  more that the present trend evidently demonstrates will be given birth to in the coming months and years  ??    !!!!! 

 

In yet other branches of physics , was it Maxwell and his contemporaries who birthed creatures such as Ten  !!  Dimensions (in , say , string theory )  ???   !!!

[Duda Jarek]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

So what is kinetic energy in a fluxon ?

In these models we have energy density (Hamiltonian, can be translated to Lagrangian) - usually with some spatial derivatives like stress, temporal for kinetic behavior, and potential (e.g. Higgs-like) ... integrating energy density we get mass of particle, usually scaling as in SR thanks to Lorentz invariance. Unfortunately it is quite tough calculation, I have attached for kink of sine-Gordon a few posts ago.

We can parametrize with positions of ansatz configurations like hedgehog, Lorentz transformed for velocities, getting classical mechanics approximations ... with kinetic energy going into mass exactly as in special relativity.

 

Fluxons are quite complex. While they are usually studied in superconductors/superfluids, here they are also needed in vacuum, e.g. to bind nucleus against Coulomb repulsion.

Probably the best experimental argument are "magnetic flux tubes" - nearly 1D shining structures seen in Sun's corona, they carry energy density per length - which can be released while shortening in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection

Quote from "Physics of Magnetic Flux Tubes" by Ryutova:

"Vortices in superfluid Helium and superconductors, magnetic flux tubes in solar atmosphere and space, filamentation process in biology and chemistry have probably a common ground, which is to be yet established. One conclusion can be made for sure: formation of filamentary structures in nature is energetically favorable and fundamental process. "

 

 

 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Was it Maxwell who invented up Magnetons , Fluxions , Non-linear and dot-dependent Zeeman splitting ,  minimal coupling , Abrikosov vortices , quantum dot arrays , bulk g-factors ,  etc   etc  . .  ..  .  and many many  more that the present trend evidently demonstrates will be given birth to in the coming months and years  ??    !!!!! 

Pieter Zeeman was 14 years old when Maxwell died. Maxwell could hardly have "invented" any Zeeman splitting. Minimal coupling has to do with gauge transformations, which is a concept introduced by Hermann Weyl, who was born 6 years after Maxwell died. So I'm guessing no.

I don't understand why fluxions are purple.

8 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

@joigus, these are matters of interpretation, e.g. in perturbative QED interpretation Coulomb interaction is performed with photon exchange ...

Yes, I understand. But has there been any attempt at building the multiplets that I'm talking about with topological equations? Is there a model of non-linear equation that can implement, if not predict, decay modes, for example? Something like that.

I know how easy it is to criticise, so please bear with me. I'm worried about this business of building analogues not being just a matter of building something that "resembles" something.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Was it Maxwell who invented up Magnetons , Fluxions , Non-linear and dot-dependent Zeeman splitting ,  minimal coupling , Abrikosov vortices , quantum dot arrays , bulk g-factors ,  etc   etc  . .  ..  .  and many many  more that the present trend evidently demonstrates will be given birth to in the coming months and years  ??    !!!!! 

Maxwell didn’t invent quantum anything.

2 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

In yet other branches of physics , was it Maxwell and his contemporaries who birthed creatures such as Ten  !!  Dimensions (in , say , string theory )  ???   !!!

No.

[Duda Jarek]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

But has there been any attempt at building the multiplets that I'm talking about with topological equations?

The number of found particles is in hundreds/thousands now. Some are virtual, like 80GeV boson W in beta decay of 1GeV neutron - this mass should be rather imagined as only shape of energy dependence like for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

What we should target (as configurations being local energy minima) are especially more stable particles and their decay modes e.g. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons ... and a general behavior in this table is decay with pion or kaon to baryon with lower strangeness.

As discussed, there are many reasons to imagine baryons in this biaxial nematic perspective as loop of one vortex around another vortex. We have three types of vortices, allowing for quark-like interpretations.

Possible complication of such simplest knot is additional internal twist of its vortex loop around - it should be obtainable in high energy collisions, and should relax by releasing part of this twist as particle - pion, kaon (bottom of diagram below) ... getting nice agreement if interpreting the number of internal twists as strangeness.

There are considered strageness 4 baryons (e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.05510 ). The space of local minima of configuration space can be quite complex: 3 types of vortices, they can contain charge (e.g. hedgehog), additional twist for loop around - can lead to hundreds of metastable states for baryons.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Maxwell didn’t invent quantum anything.

No.

So therefore , most of these , contrary to joigus' idea , have nothing to do with Maxwell. It is quaint why joigus regards whatever electricity physics there is , to have been created by the late Maxwell . . .. 

[Duda Jarek]

Maxwell equations have this weakness of allowing for any real electric charge, while nature has charge quantization at heart - only integer charges are allowed (at least asymptotically: far from particles).

We can repair this disagreement e.g. by making Gauss law count winding number/topological charge (Faber) - which has to be integer ... then its simplest nontrivial charge becomes a model of electron - the question is how to expand it to get all the particles?

[joigus]

16 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So therefore , most of these , contrary to joigus' idea , have nothing to do with Maxwell. It is quaint why joigus regards whatever electricity physics there is , to have been created by the late Maxwell . . .. 

I think you've managed to clump together there a record number of logical fallacies. One is to substitute my statements by something far more stupid than what I said, and completely disconnected to what I said; the other is to conclude something that doesn't follow from what @swansont said, and put it at variance with what I said.

Rarely ever do I disagree with Swansont, I think; or he with me (just once AFAIR, on grounds on how to explain something). That's not because we're besties, or we've been grown as seeds from the same pod. It's because we both look at science as an edifice of objective knowledge. Or, maybe I'm wrong, and the pod we've both been grown in is something we all share --or should--, which is called science.

Now, if you don't mind, I would like to discuss some of the finer points @Duda Jarek is making. We may disagree about some ways in which to tackle this question, but I want to learn more about his approach.

Thank you.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

Quote from joigus : 

" 

I meant those in the theory of electromagnetism. You seem to think something is not needed in Maxwell's theory. You said:

  18 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

we have too many of them in physics of electricity ??  !! 

(My emphasis.)" { end of quote} 

 

Quote from studiot:  

" 

First and foremost fluxions are something Newton invented to do with calculus.

We are talking about fluxons.." { end of quote }  

 

___________________________________________________________ 

 

I thought I offered enough of examples. Let's talk a bit more  on these fluxons. And possibly compare them with phonons , too. Wikipedia says : 

" In physics, a phonon is a collective excitation in a periodic, elastic arrangement of atoms or molecules in condensed matter, specifically in solids and some liquids. " Phonon, in condensed-matter physics, is a unit of vibrational energy that arises from oscillating atoms within a crystal. ... A phonon is a definite discrete unit or quantum of vibrational mechanical energy, just as a photon is a quantum of electromagnetic or light energy. Photon is a packet of energy. Phonon is deemed to be a unit of vibrational energy. Fluxon is a quantum of electromagnetic flux. Quantum itself has been introduced both for purposes of quantising and for bringing down the level of accuracy to tiniest degree possible ( in fact , thus , bringing  "up" the accuracy level). Fluxons , phonons , and photons are similar in that they are not things-in-themselves. Fluxon turns out to be a phenomenon  , not even very precisely a unit , standing somewhere in between a unit and a subjective phenomenon ( rather than an object , while many students of physics regard them as objects ). Photon stands for a "corpuscle" or "packet" of energy. You cannot possibly say that adding them together fills any manifold with energy. They are , rather , flowing , , , ,,they are "in pass" . . . .This is when the concept of energy itself has close ties to "Force" ( which is more tangible ). But energy is not force. Energy is the potential to perform "work". And itself turns out to manifest in so many different kinds. The situation with Phonons is even worse. Fluxons  can have their own ( not very objective , even epi"phenomenologic) interaction with Magnons , too. In the similar way that photons are particles of light, phonons are particles of sound or heat. ... Photons (particles that carry light and electromagnetic) do not interact with each other if they have different wavelength. However, phonons at different frequencies can mix together and generate superimposed wavelength. Here again we are dealing with "something" in the middle of being either a (cluster) unit or a carrier of "something" else ( this latter , being , say ,energy). Physicists call these basic levels of energy phonons. In a sense, then, “phonon” is just a fancy word for a particle of heat. Which is , in its own semantic  turn , becomes a particle of energy [ AND NOT A UNIT]. 

 

A masterpiece of hodgepodge of  things-in-themselves turned phenomena to be dealt with not unlike  "units" !! with varying dimensions  . . . . ..   . . . . 

 

How many more of these are we to witness in near or distant future in post-modern physics  ??   !!

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

So therefore , most of these , contrary to joigus' idea , have nothing to do with Maxwell. It is quaint why joigus regards whatever electricity physics there is , to have been created by the late Maxwell . . .. 

No, that’s not what he said, and let’s be clear here that you opened this door. YOU are the one who was complaining about too many concepts

There is nothing inherently unreasonable about correlating electricity with Maxwell. It’s a field we call electricity and magnetism. joigus defined the scope of their comments.  “electricity physics” is something you are choosing to define, after-the-fact, in order to score some points, to include quantum effects and effects that have nothing to do with electricity.