[General] QM as resonant energy exchange

[Chip Akins]

Hi Chandra

 

For some reason it seems I am not getting some of the bounces from the discussion group.  Do not yet know if it is a problem at my email server.

Can we add chipakins at akinsenterprises.com <mailto:chipakins at akinsenterprises.com>  to the list to see if that helps?

 

Attached is my current position statement in word format.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 8:51 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: [General] QM as resonant energy exchange

 

Dear Friends: In our brief position papers, we need to underscore which fundamental postulates we accept; which postulates we question; and which postulates we outright reject! I understand this is a very big demand. So, we should stay focused on the “Photon-Electron” model for this year’s discussion. But, I will encourage the group discussion on “The Fundamental Physics Postulate” to start evolving for the 2017-7th biennial conference. Unification in physics cannot be created without generating new set of coherent postulates with the deliberate intention to unify the root causes behind all the interactions responsible for the perpetual evolution in the micro and macro domains of our universe. Everything has a finite “resonant” stability within its immediate environment and a finite life-time with a “short” duration, from billions of years to femto seconds.    

 

Now I am responding as a regular participant; not as a moderator, inspired by Andrew’s recent comment:

“Out of curiosity, why don't people refer to the quantization as resonances? That is almost all QM is, and it is the basis of almost all of physics. Is it just that QM has forced people to avoid classical concepts by changing the language? Resonance is fundamental to wave mechanics; but, quanta is the 'magic' word.” 

 

Andrew’s opinion about QM reads extremely close to mine. Ch.11 of my book lays that out explicitly, while suggesting how to understand “Superposition Effects” in the “Quantum Domain” with suggested experiments. 

 

QM is nothing but partial excavation of the universal resonances in the micro world, requiring discrete amounts of energy exchanges when the micro entities interact and switch their status from one semi-stable state to another semi-stable state. Macro and micro entities, playing roles in the perpetually evolving universe, cannot afford to have any permanently stable state.  Mathematical framework of QM for discrete energy levels represents the key success of QM. Its key failure lies with its inability to map the physical PROCESSES during these energy transfer. Collective belief in the “Wave packet reduction” represents the cultural subjugation to dumb down any new enquiring questions. Thus, we definitely need to develop new quantum mechanics whose basic postulates (enquiring questions) would start with the deliberate INTENTION to understand the detailed MAPS OF THE INTERACTION PROCESSES in the micro world. This is just in contrast to continuous energy exchange allowed in the macro domain, resonant or non-resonant systems. By the way, in the QM world, the resonant micro entities with discrete energy levels can absorb the required amount of quantum “cupful” of energy from another matching QM entity or from a classical kinetic entity. Thus, photo electrons do not necessarily require Einstein’s “indivisible photon”. This is one of the biggest conceptual conundrum we are maintaining in the entire history of physics because of our collective cultural acquiescence to the human Messiah Complex. 

 

I will make time in the near future and extract the Ch.11 out of my book and email to all of you later. 

 

Chandra.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of chandra
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:16 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Hello Friends: 

1.      Common Hotel: Some of you may be aware that SPIE does have a set of hotels with “negotiated-down” rates. It is available from SPIE website for reservation. But, one of the most enterprising member of this group might like to try to make a separate negotiation to find out whether a better price can be settled.

2.      Position Documents: It will be very convenient for everybody to submit an MS Word file summarizing their “positions”. It will easy to compare and contrast for everybody. I assume, as the discussion continues; most of you might feel like updating/refining your positon. Then submit a new document. We all will re-integrate the updated files into the common document.

 

Sincerely,

Chandra.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:18 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] double-loop electron model discussion

 

Chandra, Andrew, John W, Martin, Vivian, Chip, John D, John M and others,

 

Richard Gauthier’s position statement on the relativistic charged photon model of the electron (attached below as Word file for convenience)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150402/138272ce/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Positions-Chip Akins.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150402/138272ce/attachment-0001.bin>