[General] Nature of Light and Particles -Philosophy

[chandra]

Hello Friends: 

In response to John Machen’s enquiry (see below my answer) regarding his sense of feeling somewhat “restricted”; I think it is important for me to underscore the long-term philosophy behind this conference series – to fundamentally re-direct our thinking towards keeping on discovering causal and ontological reality behind the rules, nature is playing; instead of thinking that we are permanently stuck by our current mathematical logics and measurements and the consequent model of our universe; which appears to be more mystical than causal. We must learn to go beyond! 

 

       I do not mean to impose serious restrictions on the “freedom” of creative thinking in this conference series by defining this year’s discussion topic. I want to constrain it to get some reasonable productive outcome for everybody. It is a dual-edge, with no definite solution! That is also the reason why I always prefer posing questions rather than statements – to allow for sufficient freedom of creative thinking, unlike the current culture that is perpetuated by our gurus, the Knowledge Gate Keepers! 

       So, please feel free to frame your question that best fits the answer you think you are getting while bringing logical congruency amongst diverse experimental observations by imposing on them some conceptual continuity that your neural network pleases to impose. Of course, each of us has to continue to iterate our own model and then create some comparative synthesized map of the interaction processes we model out of diverse other thinkers. Then, again continue to iterate individually and then again collectively. I am trying to promote an iterative evolutionary approach devoid of disruptive, revolutionary Paradigm Shifts of the past. It will eventually save thousands of brilliant young physicists from falling in “Group Think” trap that ultimately may turn out to be a wrong path. More frequently and pro-actively we correct our path; less likely our follow-on generation will get trapped into spending the whole life in an un-productive path. It is smart to follow a newly discovered success-track; one can achieve more successes more frequently. But, very soon the evolution of the enquiring minds of the follow-on generation will become trapped in the past success-track without further evolution. No more enquiring questions to challenge the foundational postulates behind the “working” theories. Let us not forget that those brilliant postulates were framed based upon incomplete knowledge of the cosmic system! This mode of persistent and challenging enquiry, I am trying to promote through this conference.  We must learn to pro-actively keep on correcting and re-directing our diverse modes of mapping interaction processes in nature to stay anchored in seeking out ontological reality. If we do not frame our questions to seek ontological reality; we will never find it!

       Remember, framing the question determines the answer. But, the evolving cultural (educational) training determines the sub-conscious purpose of our framing the enquiring question. Most of the time, we are not trained to be consciously aware of the purpose behind our perpetual enquiry! Our culture has experienced successful evolution for millennia  through “Messiah Complex” and “Group Thinking”. During 1920’s through 1950’s, we were driven by “fundamental physics thinking” and we had fantastic progress along that line. Then, we switched our focus steadily towards “technology” and we have ushered in the “Knowledge Age”! During this latter period, we have given out more Nobel Prizes for high-end “Engineering” achievements than during the first half of the twentieth century!

        That is why I sometimes give talks like, “Urgency of evolution-process-congruent thinking”. There is no more powerful uniting platform for our conscious thinking minds than collectively assuring our sustainable evolution. And, on this platform, developing bodies of useful knowledge on technology, politics, economics, science, arts and religions, etc., share the same common responsibility. This is a powerful path to Consilient Thinking (borrowing from Edward Wilson) congruent with our common desire for successful and sustainable evolution.

       May be I am confusing some of you; because I am still confused myself and trying to figure out how to iteratively keep on correcting our path to enquire ontological reality behind the rules of the games nature has been playing to keep us entertained and engaged forever! How can we assure ourselves that we are not fooling ourselves when we declare that the FINAL path to understand the cosmic system is the model of  “Holographic Projection”?!

 

This is not a Sunday Sermon; although it happens to be a Sunday! But persistent enquiry about the meaning and purpose behind this cosmic system and our role in it; will eventually push our species to behave more responsibly and harmoniously towards the common desire to have a sustainable biosphere. It is the deliberate separation between the social enquiry and scientific enquiry; which is making both the broad fields diverging away from a common ontological (evolution congruent) path to reality. 

 

Sincerely,

Chandra.

====================================

From: John Macken [mailto:john at macken.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 3:20 AM
To: 'chandra'
Subject: Question about Acceptable Models

 

Hello Chandra,

 

I am trying to figure out whether your instructions concerning position papers excludes my model of an electron or not.  The announced topic for the SPIE discussion is "Are electrons oscillating photons or oscillations of the vacuum itself?" My position is that both electrons and photons are oscillations of the vacuum itself.  I can give equations and proofs which support this position rather than just arm waving.  As far as I can tell, my model of both an electron and a photon has been quantified to a greater degree than anyone else in the group.  

 

There is obviously a difference between electrons and photons.  On a casual level it is possible to say they are related, but a more precise description must include quantifiable differences which result in their different characteristics.  It is most accurate to connect both electrons and photons to the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime rather that attempt to say that one forms the other.  

 

Now for my question: Should I write a position paper if I do not fit the definition of an electron being a double loop photon?  I clearly fit within the announced topic, but it appears as if you are asking for a more focused group of papers which promote the position that electrons are a special form of photon. I can show that they are both closely related through wave amplitudes, impedance, force characteristics, etc. but there are also differences.  Also, I believe that I can make a good case that an electron and other fundamental particles are a quantifiable wave in spacetime that is one Compton wavelength in circumference.  This makes it a single loop rather than a double loop.  I do not know if this factor of 2 in radius should be a deal breaker compared to the rest of the physics community that believes in point particles.

 

Sincerely,

John Macken

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150405/37809310/attachment.htm>