[General] Electron
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 10:32:36 PDT 2015
Hi Martin
Thank you. And by the way, I have never intended to “shoot the messenger”
in our discussions. I value your experience and perspective, but have an
interest in more fully understanding, and not taking anything for granted,
just because that is the current interpretation of experimental results.
Please don’t be offended or take my comments about certain aspects of
physics personally. I know you are offering your knowledge and experience
to try to help, and that is also the intent of my questions and opinions.
Currently it seems to me that we are at a sort of “roadblock” in the
development of physics, and I feel that is partly because we are not looking
at part of the evidence correctly. There seem to be things we have
overlooked or misinterpreted which are causing us to not be able to see
further.
I have, over the years, read, and continue to read, the piles of literature.
But the piles of accepted literature have lead us to this roadblock. That
is specifically why I ask these questions again. It seems that, if we take
another look, using perhaps a different interpretation and perspective, we
might find other explanations which do not lead to a dead end.
I tend to agree with you that electromagnetic waves do not appear to be
quantized in most circumstances, and in those circumstance where they seem
quantized, there may be an explanation relating to the emitter and absorber
which explains why they seem quantized.
Due to the existing literature, and our discussions regarding mass, I have
generally avoided using the terms Bosons and Fermions, in order to try to
more accurately describe the differences between the nature, quantization,
and spin states (modes), of these different particles. But if we can avoid
the confusion, it is much easier to use the terms boson and fermion.
Once again, thank you for your insight and knowledge. You are appreciated
very much.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:16 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron
Dear Chip,
Having spent most of my physics time in optics, still and ever since I was a
student 1980 or so, I may be able to answer some of the questions.
see my comments below in blue
.
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 15:12
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Electron
Hi All
Martin and John W have asked an interesting question. What is quantized?
I have been doing electrical engineering work for about 40 years, and it is
obvious that all EM fields do not exhibit spin properties. In radio, cell
phones, RF signals, we have to carefully design the antenna if we want spin
(circular polarization). It is possible that horizontal or vertical signals
have equal quantities of right and left circular components that we cannot
detect independently, but this seems unlikely. For if those components were
present we would be able to receive the plane polarized signal with about
half power using a circularly polarized antenna, and we would be able to
pass a plane polarized photon through a plane polarizer and then a circular
polarizer and have light at half power as a result. But neither of these
conditions seem to be met when we observe the nature of EM waves.
Well, what you describe is what actually happens! Half the power will come
through.
This seems to indicate that the particles which emit photons produce the
spin?
Only certain quantities of energy can be emitted and absorbed by discrete
energy in a resonant system, and only at certain frequencies.
Does this indicate that photons are quantized only by the nature of the
emitter and absorber? Are photons, and fields, quantized? Or are fields
only quantized when confined in a particle?
This is indeed what it is all about.
I can give one important answer, and I believe each of us will have to
agree:
“The photon is that thing that represents/characterizes precisely all that
is exchanged in an electromagnetic interaction”
All please comment to help to make this statement as powerful and true as
possible!
What the statement does not say is whether the electromagnetic field is
quantized or not, the interaction is, that is all we can say. This may be
the result of the nature of the emitter and absorber or of the
electromagnetic fields, or both.
My position is that the EM-fields are not quantized and that the quantized
interaction is due to the emitter and absorber. This implies that all
emitters (and all absorber) must have some universal structure at a deep
level that makes that photons always look the way they do. That this can be
true is not obvious. Hence it looks easier to attribute quantization to the
field. However, this has not lead to much better understanding of what is
going on and that is why , after a century, we (luckily) can have a
conference about it!
As an aside: What is the best, and most economical way to refer to the
difference between photons (light speed particles) and spin ½ particles
which are at rest when stationary?
Bosons and fermions?
Are photons particles or do they just appear to be particles in their
interaction with the absorbing particles?
I say the latter.
If we emit a very low level, continuous stream of EM radiation at a double
slit experiment, wouldn’t the target only show signs of that radiation one
particle at a time?
If you make a Fock state (number state) of one particle, yes. It is not good
enough to just dim the light (see piles of experiments and literature)
As a particular particle (electron) absorbed enough energy to become
dislodged, wouldn’t it produce the speckles we see in such experiments?
Wouldn’t we have to have a frequency high enough to meet the absorbers
resonant conditions for becoming dislodged before any electrons would be
freed? So exactly why is it then that we feel that double slit experiments
prove that light is quantized?
They do not prove that, the douible slit experiment shows that em-radiation
is a wave.
The clicks in a detector, given a fock state, or in a photon correlation
experiment show that the interaction is quantized. (I cannot give the full
answer, it is too long, go read the liereature)
It is easy to understand that light emitted from discrete energy resonant
systems (particles) will have a specific energy content and a specific
frequency, and therefore appear quantized. It is also easy to see that these
particles, as absorbers, will only accept energy of specific quantities and
frequency content. But does that describe the nature of light itself or just
the nature of the emitter and absorber?
One really, really cannot tell just like that, but I go for the latter. Why?
Circumstantial evidence and all, all, all of my experience. It means nothing
for proving the fact, but is of greatest importance to drive science into
one direction, fail or win.
I have been able to get far enough into Bell’s theorem, and the effect that
two non-commuting rotations have on that theorem, to feel that a simple set
of local variables (rotations) can account for effects which we have thought
to be “entanglement”. It seems that entanglement may be an illusion we have
had due to our lack of understanding of the processes at work.
Entanglement of particles is real. Experimentally proven. It also has a
sound theoretical foundation. This is how quantum mechanics works. However,
that does not mean that we understand why it works that way in all respects.
Also it does not mean that quantum mechanics is totally complete or correct
about some other things. But quantum mechanics is correct about this one!!!
And it is the most puzzling thing there is.
And one warning, just in case, I am just the messenger here, so do not try
to shoot me again, please.
So again the question. Are photons just EM waves which appear to be
quantized due to the emitters and absorbers, or are photons themselves, due
to their own forces and fields, quantized?
This question can be answered using the statement I made earlier:
“The photon is that thing that represents/characterizes precisely all that
is exchanged in an electromagnetic interaction”
The better question is:
“Are electromagnetic waves quantized by their own nature, or is this the
result of the nature of the emitter and absorber”
Chip, thanks for helping me utter this. I believe it is most relevant and
very useful for the conference.
Cheers, Martin
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 5:34 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron
John, i like that remark!
By the way i still must come back to the gravitational field and rest mass,
proper mass, invariant mass or intrinsic mass confusion we talked about
earlier. I was at one point talking at crossed purpose with you, i have
realized, when you were talking about a conservative gravitational field
(such as truely exists in an accelerating rocket) and i was not paying
proper attention. What i should have said is that one can only measure the
invariant mass by local comparison with a standard mass.
So one must bring the standard mass (together with the balance) from ground
floor to second floor if one wants to way the electron that happens to live
just there.
Anyway, i apologize for the extra confusion,
Best, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 28 apr. 2015 om 22:00 heeft John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com
<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com> > het volgende geschreven:
David:
Forgive me for interrupting, but IMHO the electron acts as flywheel that is
rotating like a flywheel, and like a smoke ring. There are two orthogonal
rotations. See the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_spinor> Dirac spinor
article on Wikipedia? See where it mentions bispinor? A bispinor is a spin
half spinner. It has intrinsic spin like a tornado has intrinsic spin. It
makes it what it is. Take the spin away from a tornado, and all you’ve got
is wind. Take the spin away from an electron, and all you’ve got is light.
Regards
John D
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: 28 April 2015 20:44
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Electron
Chip
Does the electron act as a flywheel?
David
_____
From: Chip Akins < <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Electron
Hi Martin
Yes, I had imagined that the spiral structure would hold with acceleration,
perhaps slowing a bit in rotation, but the energy in the fields would
presumably be concentrated more toward the center making the apparent
frequency higher.
The red and blue lines are mostly for my use, I can change the colors easily
if that will help. What color convention seems best?
It seemed interesting how close to spherical the entire system becomes with
rotation. After adding the magnetic fields it may appear even more
spherical.
Hi David
Thank you. I will begin labeling these. However the model is symmetrical
so the direction of spin is equatorial, but ambiguous (either left or right)
until the magnetic fields are added to the model. When adding the magnetic
fields we choose a direction of spin which determines the magnetic poles,
then of course, spin direction becomes definable in reference to those
poles.
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 6:37 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position
Hi Chip,
Thank you for this very nice modeling, it is very good food for imagining
things.
Just a loose remark, it doesn’t matter a bit, why make negative red and
positive blue? It is the weirdest convention I’ve seen. Maybe you do this on
purpose just to triggers and not take any convention for granted!
Anyway, what I really like to say with respect to the modelling of the
photon is that the spiral structure around the line of propagation seems to
be fractal or infinite or whatever. It occurred to me that there must be
Some kind of fixed spiral structure that will mimic a spatial shrink by a
factor of gamma while it is only the field strength over that spiral that
changes, reallyl If you have modeled just that, then I think it is utterly
brilliant. It reminds me of a infinitely broadband spiral antenna!!!!
Whatever, you have helped me to gain a very interesting insight, thank you.
The electron animation looks cool to, but in my mind no immediate
observation condenses to something useful yet.
Log spiral antennas:
<http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0
CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m
8_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCf
qn8g&ust=1430307130240990>
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0C
AcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m8
_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfq
n8g&ust=1430307130240990
<http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Ce
ntre/EMS_Electromagnetic_Systems/english/research/research_projects/projects
/spiral_antenna/spiral_antenna02.ashx%253Fla%253Dda&imgrefurl=http://www.ems
.elektro.dtu.dk/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna&h=141&w=2
94&tbnid=Ag91Xs0bJg6dRM:&zoom=1&docid=0Ucr7bBdv8H0NM&ei=uW8_VYq5KdHbaPe0gMgK
&tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygFMAU>
http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Cen
tre/EMS_Electromagnetic_Systems/english/research/research_projects/projects/
spiral_antenna/spiral_antenna02.ashx%253Fla%253Dda&imgrefurl=http://www.ems.
elektro.dtu.dk/research/research_projects/projects/spiral_antenna&h=141&w=29
4&tbnid=Ag91Xs0bJg6dRM:&zoom=1&docid=0Ucr7bBdv8H0NM&ei=uW8_VYq5KdHbaPe0gMgK&
tbm=isch&ved=0CCQQMygFMAU
<http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0
CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPd
mOgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=143
0307130240990>
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&ved=0C
AcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPdm
OgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430
307130240990
Cheers, Martin
Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
Prof. Holstlaan 4
5656 AE Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 2747548
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.org>
mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: dinsdag 28 april 2015 1:45
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] position
Hi Martin, John W, Vivian and all
Attached is a video of an envisioned set of field lines for an electron
model.
Red lines are the more negative and blue the more positive ends of the field
lines.
There is a spiral shape to the field lines which assumes they have a fixed
velocity. That aspect does not come through completely in the animation.
It is also assumed that similar fields repel each other and that confinement
places a limit on the repulsive effect. The confined photon, which
comprises the electron model, is one Compton wavelength, and makes a double
loop. Sorry, the animation does not yet rotate exactly around the center,
still working on that one. It is also assumed that the electron will have
an additional “tumble” which is not yet modeled. The electric field is
depicted but the magnetic field is not yet in the animation.
Watching the video, it seems you, Martin, are correct in that this type of
model may display ½ integral spin from any direction.
The intent is to attempt to go as deeply into the modeling as reasonably
possible, to see if we can learn more of the details. This seems to be
required in order to reach the goal of modeling interactions more
accurately.
The color of the lines fades to white as the field strength drops off. (Of
course the fields keep going, but become weaker with distance from the
transport radius.)
Thoughts, suggestions, and criticism are welcomed.
Chip
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org>
mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.o
rg] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] position
Dear Andrew,
It is a monumental task to keep track of everything, i have the same
problem, but perhaps there are even more things that nobody seems to have
mentioned, but can still also be found in a paper published in Annales de la
fondation Louis de Broglie in 1997. ;-)
Every fundamental particle must effectively be a single-mode cavity both
containing and resulting from its own energy. It is three dimensional by
diffraction of the almost infinite wavetrain that is biting its own tail in
a single wavelength (mono mode) cavity. Well, actually, two polarization
modes are allowed, giving rise to two spin states of the object. It is
plausible, but remains to be proven rigorously, that a double loop gives the
right equipartition of spin1/2 , simultaneous in all directions if the basic
circulation is spin 1. The latter is what john and i put in: the photon,
hence the title: Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 27 apr. 2015 om 21:00 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <
<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
Dear Richard,
Something that no one seems to have mentioned/noticed is that the bound
photon, as a stationary electron, should have a spherical rather than a
circular path. Only in this manner can it have angular momentum in all and
any directions. Also, when moving, even slowly, relativistic effects will
'flatten' the sphere in the direction of motion. This flattening will raise
the energy, increase the inertia, and introduce the E-field distortions
called magnetic field, B.
The path distortion from the spherical with motion gives a helical path for
some portion of the photon length. The path is much more complicated for
elements of the path that are not normal to the direction of motion. The
photon itself may be a standing wave moving at c. If so, elements of the
wave move faster than c and later move slower than c. In the electron, the
same thing may happen. Only the average velocity is limited to c. Since the
photon is a wave, the phase velocity can greatly exceed c, before the
electron velocity becomes relativistic.
Andrew
__________________________________
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Richard Gauthier <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew and all,
Here’s a design challenge: design a single or double-looped circulating
charged photon (either of spin 1 or spin 1/2) that models an electron and
whose electric field satisfies Gauss’ law and generates the electron’s
charge -e from its electric field, while its magnetic field generates the
electron’s magnetic moment (or at least the Bohr magneton ehbar/2m). The
charged photon should travel at light speed and obey the relations E=hf and
p=h/lambda. It should move in a circular path when the electron is at rest
and in a helical path when the electron moves at non-relativistic or
relativistic velocities, and should continue to generate the charge -e from
Gauss’ law while the electron is in motion. Indicate what modification(s) if
any of Maxwell’s equations are necessary to do this (they should be as few
as possible, if any).
Richard
On Apr 26, 2015, at 9:04 AM, Andrew Meulenberg < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
Bob has addressed a point that should be too obvious to need consideration.
However, for many years, I ignored it and it appears that most of us still
do so. Conservation of charge. While it is possible to posit and describe
the electron in terms of a photon, recognition of the requirement for charge
conservation and the positive and negative (but net neutral) nature of all
photons must be accepted as a 'given'.
It is for this reason that I have proposed the 4-D structure of the
electron/positron pair. It explains so much and leads beyond the
electron-only structure. I believe that this has to be a fundamental
position for all of us - to be accepted, explained, and/or modeled in
various ways. If not, then I fear that, as John W says, we will be unable
"... to convince people we are not crazies..."
The point is that while the 'twist' can explain the net charge of an
electron, it presents the problem of what happens to the opposite field
lines. They cannot be confined inside a 3-D container (topologically
impossible w/o a charge source). My field-rectification and wormhole
conjecture may not be the answer; but, it does address the problem. The
field lines, as the gradient of a potential, presents a picture that Bob and
I will be proposing for the dynamic potentials of standing waves within an
interference pattern.
The question is, "since there is no original potential within the space that
becomes an electron, how does it get there?" Actually, to create an
electron/positron pair, a strong electrical-potential gradient (such as a
nucleus) must exist. However, after the lepton pair is formed, the nucleus
structure is left behind and remains unaffected. The potential(s) formed are
balanced and become the lepton masses. They are separated in space by the
nuclear potential gradient. Are they also separated and combined in 'time'?
If so, how and by what. The energy density of the 'internal' field lines
being compressed, by the photon 'curling' as it passes the nucleus, will
distort space (into time) and help create the wormhole joining the field
structures that will become the lepton pair.
This distortion is the electric potential created in the formation process.
The womhole is the vortex that gives the pair stability (and perhaps their
ultimate independence).
If anyone can come up with other (perhaps better) models, or reasons why
such might not be required, please bring them forth.
Andrew
____________________________________
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, robert hudgins < <mailto:hudginswr at msn.com>
hudginswr at msn.com> wrote:
Dear Friends of Light,
Pardon my intrusion on your discussion. I have been warned that I will be
excluded unless I actively participate.
Chip's diagram's are beautiful! His skill is enviable. However, it
provokes questions. Why spin h and not 1/2? Are colors charge related?
The photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light energy
is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the photon energy
has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled assembly of EM waves
that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are condensed and captured
by a resonator. Though the electron is clearly more discreet, it might
also travel as an assembly of waves that pass through both openings of a
double slit while engaging in constructive or destructive interference.
I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that totally
conceals only the positive charge of a photon.
Is an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct? Are
electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency
today?
Thanks for your patience,
Bob
_____
From: <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> chipakins at gmail.com
To: <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson
Hi All
Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin h.
Viewed from the longitudinal axis:
<image001.jpg>
And the side
<image004.png>
Chip
From: General [mailto: <mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>
general-bounces+chipakins=
<mailto:gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van
der
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson
Dear Chandra,
I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized himself,
but the future must show us.
Bohr did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced a
revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That way of
thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be removed to see
the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.
Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers progress!
Cheers, Martin
Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra < <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
chandra at phys.uconn.edu> het volgende geschreven:
Friends:
For a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an
excellent writer. In the last part of his “Book Review” article (attached),
Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical positions of Einstein
(Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current generation (Quantum-Only). To
save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump to the bottom of the
picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!
My philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while acknowledging
that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence of quantum
uncertainty is “because the processes in the second layer are unobservable”
(Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with demonstrated experiments in my
book (“Causal Physics”), that when we start framing our enquiring postulates
to imagine and visualize the invisible interaction processes, the nature
start to become a lot more transparent even within the current QM
formalisms. Further, this philosophy of Interaction Process Mapping
Epistemology (IPME) shows that current QM, in spite of its great successes,
a next generation formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to be
developed by the next generation. In other words, I am suggesting that our
Knowledge Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently
successful theories and encourage the next generation to come up with
various serious but radically different possible approaches. Our conference
platform is one such example.
If we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the
invisible aspects of nature’s interaction processes; we will forever remain
in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does not
represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.
Chandra.
From: General [
<mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org>
mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticle
s.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM
To: David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Articles of interest
Dear David and everyone,
Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than I
do (what a surprise!).
There is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing
this for years in HEP with its linear accelerator. For that matter Millikan
was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment – and the
school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this experiment myself
at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that they can make it
sound as though detecting one electron something sexy! Robert Hadfield (in
our group) is in the business of detecting single photons and John Weaver
(in our group) has huge capability to look at individual electrons with some
of his work as well. This stuff is widely published!
More important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!) is
looking at the underlying sub-electron structure. Back in the late 1980’s
and early 1990’s I was in the business of looking at just that. I designed a
single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a thousandth of the
electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page you can find several
papers related to this. The device could also be used as a single electron
pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase locked to the frequency of a
varying gate potential. My paper (see attached), looking at the electron
sub-structure delivered electrons one-at-a-time and probe the profile of the
individual electron wave-function with a resolution of better than a tenth
of its de Broglie wavelength. This experimental work did not stop when I
left the field of course. Leo Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years
investigating my single-electron electrometer device (and creating new ones)
in the last quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal of
experimental information about the inner structure of matter, electrons (and
photons) with which to work.
What was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper
theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure. This
is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework and
secondly get the message out.
We have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious, new
science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to the
outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or just
plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an online
discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to make a
serious attempt at convincing the outside world.
Regards, John.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
richgauthier at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
mules333 at gmail.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_____
The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally
protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies
of the original message.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflight
andparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/e1c76271/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12478 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150429/e1c76271/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list