[General] Positions

Tue Apr 7 07:45:34 PDT 2015

Good progress happening!

Many thanks, Andrew; and many thanks to all the participants! 

We will have a great "meeting", a great "discussion" and a great "conference
proceeding"!

Eventually we will succeed in turning around the mode of physics thinking
out of its current stagnancy towards perpetual and iterative advancements!

Chandra.

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:09 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Positions

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-natureoflighta
ndparticles.org/2015-March/000219.html>   Chip Akins 
*	[General] Positions
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflighta
ndparticles.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/d25449d7/attachment.htm>