[General] Positions

Tue Apr 7 05:09:23 PDT 2015

Dear Folks,

Viv has taken a different 'position', but a valid one that is worth
heeding. We now have 2 positions in March and 2 in April.

Andrew

March 2015

   - [General] Positions
   <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/2015-March/000219.html>
     *Chip Akins *
   - [General] Positions
   <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/2015-March/000230.html>
     *John Williamson *

_ _ _
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The themes of this discussion group are the "Nature of Light and Particles
> .." and "electrons as oscillating photons .." or otherwise. It arose from
> John W and others considering the possibility that electrons can be
> explained as "double hooped electromagnetic oscillations", "rotating" or
> "toroidal" photons" or similar descriptions. We should all be aware that
> attempts to attribute a structure to electrons immediately takes us out of
> the realm of quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle limitation.
> As quantum mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, it sets up a
> "collision course" with "standard model" physicists. Taking on the
> "establishment" is not an easy task. (It is also well outside the theme of
> this discussion group.) But neither is it an impossible task. In the final
> analysis, experimental observation is reality and even accepted "standard
> models" will eventually give way to experimental reality. Only by coming up
> with experimentally verified data that is predicted by a non standard model
> theory can we hope to make any progress.
>
> The various models for the electron are said to come from properties of a
> photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. This gives individual
> electrons their spin of half hbar as well as the reason for E = mc**2, E
> being the photon travelling in a straight line at c and m being the same
> photon travelling at c in a circle of radius hbar/2mc. Of course these
> depend upon the nature of the photon, which is the basis of this discussion.
>
> Several presentations about the nature of photons have been forwarded.
> There seems to be general agreement that linear photons come from Maxwell's
> equations. They have energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by
> frequency (nu). In free space they travel at the velocity of light c,
> having wavelength lambda = c/nu. Their electric and magnetic fields are
> perpendicular to each other and can rotate giving circularly polarised
> photons. Various suggestions are made about their measured spin 1 x (hbar)
> property. Some suggest spin is angular momentum and circularly polarised
> photons have spin 1 x hbar) while plane polarised photons do not have
> angular momentum. Even here there is disagreement. This brings the
> discussion back to the questions "What are photons" and "How do you
> describe them?" After all it is the properties of the photon that will
> determine some of the properties of electrons under this general discussion
> group.
>
> So, getting back to the discussion topic. Does anyone want to expand on
> the above description of the properties of photons? I would like to suggest
> this is done by describing the physical principle first. In describing the
> property, it would help to give experimental verification for the property
> attributed. For example, if a photon has n oscillations giving it spatial
> length of n x lambda, rather than a length of just 1 x lambda, please
> indicate the experimental evidence for it and why this is interpreted as n
> and  not some other number.
>
> As mentioned earlier, if we want to be taken seriously we need to make
> progress against the standard model. This group needs to suggest
> experiments that can be performed and will give different results from the
> standard model. Of all the ideas forwarded to date, only one experimentally
> measurable prediction has been suggested to this discussion group about the
> nature of the electron. That is, an electron is not a point particle, being
> instead a double hooped electromagnetic oscillation, rotating photon, or
> whatever. Calculations have been referenced to papers by several of us,
> which suggest that its rest radius is hbar/2mc, or 1.93 x 10**-13 m. This
> radius diminishes with increasing speed, being < 10**-18 m at TeV. There is
> some discussion as to whether the radius diminishes according to 1/gamma or
> 1/(gamma)**2, but that is something that can be checked experimentally. It
> has been suggested that experiments to carry this out could be performed
> for only a few million dollars and would give very significant results.
>
> You need to look at this discussion group from the perspective of
> "standard model" physicists viewing all the correspondence. (Yes, spying on
> email does happen.) Any standard model physicist would see that Chandra has
> presented us with a wonderful opportunity to give our ideas, which are not
> considered mainstream, an exposure to some "mainstream" physicists for
> discussions on the nature of light and particles. Much of the discussion
> presented so far has been made without supporting measurements. More than
> one participant has chosen to introduce "pet theories" that have no direct
> link to the structure of photons or electrons. What do you think standard
> model physicists would think? A brief answer is that its participants can't
> keep to the topics and appear more interested ideas than facts. In short, a
> group that is not demonstrating any reason why it should be taken
> seriously. This is a discussion on the nature of light (photons) and
> particles, particularly the electron. Introducing concepts such as general
> relativity and gravity in discussions of the nature of light and particles
> (electrons) is not helpful.
>
> Gentlemen (and ladies if you have joined in), we are all experienced
> scientists. We all know this topic is a general discussion on the nature of
> light and electrons (other particles can be included where appropriate).
> Let us stick to those topics in a serious manner. A position paper should
> represent a position on the nature of light and particles. Describing a
> position on anything else is wasting time unless it is used directly to
> support the nature of light and electrons. As was mentioned earlier, if
> describing a property of a photon, please give a reason for it to have that
> property, physical reasons preferred.
>
> John M, you informed me you had a model of a photon that was better than
> the single linear electromagnetic oscillation you read in my original
> electron paper. This is what I and others want to know. The more
> information about the nature of the photon that is supported by observation
> the better position we will be in to determine "the nature of light and
> electrons". But please, support it with experimental observation or a
> suggested experiment that could verify your hypothesis. So far you have
> only stated you have ".. ideas (which you say) can be experimentally
> supported, ..". I and others look forward to reading the experimental
> support for 6). This is not the right forum to show experimental support
> for the other topics.
>
> John W and I have previously invited anyone who can make suggestions for
> other possible experiments that could also be used for determining the
> correctness of otherwise of their model. In order to achieve some useful
> outcome from this great opportunity Chandra has made available to us, we
> must remain focussed on the topic. For an alternative theory on anything to
> be accepted over the current "standard model" interpretation, it must make
> testable predictions. If anything useful is to come out of this great
> opportunity Chandra is presenting, it will be best measured by the number
> of testable predictions forwarded by this discussion group. The only way
> standard model physicists will take this seriously is when our predictions
> match observations that are not supported from "standard model"
> predictions. I would like to ask that the discussion keep to experimentally
> observed (preferably with a brief description or reference) or testable
> statements.
>
> You may take my request as my "Position Statement" for this discussion
> group.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vivian Robinson
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150407/f54ec935/attachment-0001.htm>