[General] FW: Photons & Electrons are different excitations of a common cosmic field

Thu Apr 30 09:39:29 PDT 2015

Dear Chandra,
please find comments and question 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.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: woensdag 29 april 2015 21:47
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] FW: Photons & Electrons are different excitations of a common cosmic field

Hello Everybody!
I got confused as to whether everybody got my last email sent through my department email, instead of recently switched direct university mail address: Chandra.Roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:Chandra.Roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> .

Please, for future direct communication with me, use this university email. My email for our web served communication has already been updated. However, my department email Chandra at phys.uconn.edu<mailto:Chandra at phys.uconn.edu> will remain active for a while during the transition period.

Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: chandra [mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 12:49 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: RE: [General] Electron

Hello Friends: My main job is to "stir up the pot", but respectfully!

I am probably the most "classical" of this group. So, I hope, I do not annoy you with my following "Classical" model of the universe. However, I know the limits of my brain and hence always open to all other serious ideas for serious nurturing. I hope, some of you would challenge the very foundational postulates behind the modern "particle theory" concepts. Some of the currently believed "measured" physical transformations may not really be possessed by photons; but rather are Quantum Mechanical properties of detecting particles that become manifest during the interactions between light waves and quantum dipoles. Let us not forget the successes of the semi-classical model pushed by Jaynes, Lamb, Scully, etc.

1.      Diffractive spreading of EM waves: I am in tune with Chip. Photon wave packets from Radio through X-rays are not Einstein's "Indivisible Quanta". They follow Huygens-Fresnel's diffractive spreading formula. Even the "Chandra" X-Ray telescope was designed using HF driven classical imaging formulas. Gamma rays do behave as if they do not spread diffractively in all gamma-ray tandem detectors (but, they are divisible!).
;-) Chandra do you have x-ray vision too?
There is some fundamental physics buried behind gamma rays not spreading diffractively and remain "corpuscular"!. But, we have never enquired about that; as we are erroneously driven by excessive love for "simplicity" and "Occam's Razor". They are "good guidance", but not for exclusive thinking. Because the various "simple" emergent properties we experience are emergent out very complex natural systems.

But the fact that Gamma rays are "corpuscular" and that they do give birth to electron-positron pairs while interacting with baryons and nucleons (not by themselves; my insistence on non-interaction of EM waves!); all the attempts to construct electron out photon-like oscillations are self-consistent science. However, photons' spontaneous "c" velocity across the universe requires a sustaining Cosmic Tension Field (CTF); of which two of the tensions are already known, "epsilon" and "mu". If I were a theoretician, I would postulate "charge" as some form of emergent property of the self-looped E-vector oscillation, perhaps leveraging some other tension property out of the "Complex" Tension Field. [By the way, I have never seen any publication demonstrating two-slit diffraction pattern (cosine-squared fringes under sinc-squared envelope). Please, send a reference, if you have one.)

Are you serious? I must be confused...what do you really mean here?

To me, electrons are not oscillating photons. Photons are linear excitation of the CTF and hence they must perpetually propagate. But, electrons and protons (only stable particles) are non-linearly excited localized self-looped oscillations of the same CTF of two varieties; independent of photons. Their self-looped resonance (hence stable) is at the foundation of emergence of the quantumness-driven universe; allowing for the emergence of diverse other short and long lived resonances as different assemblies.

Further, because electrons and protons are again excited states (manifestation) of the same CTF; they do not possess any "mass" as Newton pragmatically assigned, facilitating the development of  classical mechanics.

Can you say what Newton meant by "mass"? It is an incorrect statement, anyway I can interpret it, unless he meant "primordial stuff". Is that so? Well, I will be talking about this at the conference to clarify.

And Einstein was brilliant in deriving the simple relation that mass is nothing but a bundled up energy with inertia to motion, m=E/c^2.

Very true indeed, I would say, but salient detail is that it is not widely accepted. But we are very much on the same page here!

Of course, a moving resonant oscillation has more energy than a "rest" one; because some external energy has to be imposed to give it the "kinetic energy of motion". One can surmise the evolution of Einstein's thinking, first Special Relativity and then General Relativity.

2.      Spin and angular momentum of photons: EM wave packets do not possess any of these properties themselves. They are responses of the interacting material particles.

The quantumness observed in the photo electric data drove Einstein to postulate that photons are quantized. Because, during early 1900 nobody knew that all electrons are, in reality, quantum mechanically bounded in materials. Today, we know that all electron energies are quantized because they are bound quantum mechanically in atoms, molecules and solids. Modern exhaustive studies in "photo electron spectroscopy" validates this statement. Photons are not bound quantum entities. They are emergent excitations of the cosmic medium, the CTF, triggered by excited dipoles; which happen to release quantum "cupful" of energies! The velocity of the emitting source cannot influence the velocity of EM waves. A different phenomena arises due to source and detector velocities. The source velocities generate real "Physical Frequency Shift" (Doppler broadened spectra, etc.) and various detector velocities make them perceive different "Apparent Frequency Shifts" out of the same oncoming wave front of the same frequency.

Similarly, quantized dipolar properties of atoms, molecules and materials display "spin" like properties when interacting with orthogonally polarized light beams. And, when material particles absorb or reflect energies out of light beams, they acquire real material-momentum by acquiring energy out of the propagating waves. So, yes, if we stay focused on energy balance equations and energy conservations only, we can map the nature limited way; alas, also validated by math and data. But when we try to understand the deeper, but invisible amplitude-amplitude driven interaction processes first (Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology), and then extract the energy transfer driven measurable data (Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology); we have better physics.

In this whole item 2 you say (or at least suggest very strongly) that quantization is the result of the emitter and absorber. That is entirely  in line with your thoughts about CFT. At the same time, your reaction on the work of Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode and Carver Mead, the EPR and other Bell experiments has been astonishingly dismissive. Why? You are contradicting yourself. Your line of thinking can hardly not lead anywhere else than to the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory!

3.      Polarization & Experiments: I am attaching an older set of experiments with superposition of two polarized beams and how the dipolar excitation process advances. The paper also demonstrate another way that waves do not interact  by themselves. It is the detecting dipole's properties that determine the observable superposition effects as perceived by them through their allowed quantum channel of interactions. During coming August, we will demonstrate models (and hopefully experimental data) by extending the two-polarized-beam excitation (superposition) model to the three-polarized-beam excitation (superposition).

I hope, I have "stirred up the pot" sufficiently for the time being!

I hope you see what I am (un)stirring too,

I also hope that you, as a moderator, will come back to my "nature of the photon" statement:

"The photon is that thing that represents/characterizes precisely all  that is exchanged in an electromagnetic interaction"

So far no reaction, apart from David Mathes who got stuck with the idea that the photons must necessarily be a thing. That is entirely my fault as you can read in the statement. A consequence of English being a foreign language to me. I'll ty to do better with this updated version:

"The photon is that what represents/characterizes precisely all  that is exchanged in an electromagnetic interaction"

Please all comment, not so much, perhaps, by asking questions but by proposing better versions of the statement.
Cheers, Martin

Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 9:12 AM
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.

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?

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?

Are photons particles or do they just appear to be particles in their interaction with the absorbing particles?  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? 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?

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?

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.

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?

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 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 Dirac spinor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D08370.42332BD0]

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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 <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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] 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=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftolijojed.net%2Flog-spiral-antenna-pattern%2F&ei=7m8_VY2wNYe_PPXtgeAE&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430307130240990

http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ems.elektro.dtu.dk/~/media/Centre/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=294&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=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsuperkuh.com%2Fspiralantenna.html&ei=D3A_VYSXNsrZPdmOgbgL&bvm=bv.91665533,d.d2s&psig=AFQjCNETagmdpl9_jVAhXKruvRJBCfqn8g&ust=1430307130240990

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.natureoflightandparticles.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] 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 <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto: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 <richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto: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 <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto: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 <hudginswr at msn.com<mailto: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: chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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:general-bounces+chipakins<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins>=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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 <chandra at phys.uconn.edu<mailto: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.natureoflightandparticles.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 richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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 davidmathes8 at yahoo.com<mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=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/20150430/3426f955/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12478 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150430/3426f955/attachment.jpg>