[General] Questionnaire
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 06:13:03 PDT 2015
Hi Chandra
Thank you for your comments. Culturally we have different backgrounds. I
am US born, English, Irish, Jew, and Native American, and my wife Jasveer
Kaur Akins is, of course, of Indian decent. So I have had some glimpse of
the rich cultural heritage from which you come. And I appreciate this in
you.
We have looked at the universe, experiment, and the writings of other
physicists, and independently come to many of the same conclusions, yet we
are from very different backgrounds and technical disciplines. This is
quite encouraging.
I am currently of the opinion that we may be able to make some significant
progress. For example, if we take the known behaviors of the reaction of
energy as it propagates through space, and envision the tensors, possible
"polarization" of space, and the changes to the transverse modulus and
"density" of space, we may be able to lay enough foundation to undertake a
more accurate model of space. Then filling in the pieces so that the model
replicates the known behavior and properties for waves and particles. There
is more information available than we might initially think, which can help
us accomplish such a task.
This work is started (very early and basic beginnings), by writing down some
steps and explanations, and starting the task of doing some initial math, to
find a starting place. At some point I would like to share this with you,
if you are interested, so that you can comment, and if it is interesting to
you, contribute.
The work of John W. and Martin, as well as Richard's work, have been a
constant inspiration, and I have learned much from these friends. They each
have helped me in probably more ways than they know.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:53 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Chip:
I obviously like your arguments. Somehow, our neural network has a decent
degree of similarity, in spite of being brought up in different cultures!
This is very important; because, we need, like the story of the blind men
mapping the cosmic elephant, diversity of approaches and then bring them
together by demanding conceptual continuity among diversity while imposing
logical congruence. These two actions, taken iteratively, will take our
epistemic theories closer and closer towards ontic reality. The path for
iteration is to imagine (visualize) the invisible interaction processes.
This is, of course, if we accept the postulate that the interaction
processes in nature are connected more closely to the ontic reality than the
measured data that represent only limited response to any interaction. Just
data-validated theories cannot be our final theories.
As you have underscored, the word "complex" in CTF has been used after a lot
of rumination on the interaction processes for different phenomena: Present
belief that the current epistemic theories are good enough. As if there is
no need to seek out ontic theories.
Yes, the entire concept of modern particle theory and the concept of forces
will have to be changed to integrate with the CTF model; the CTF itself need
to undergo many refinements. We have to replace Bosons as force mediators by
emergent secondary and tertiary potential gradients of the CTF around
self-looped oscillators (particles) and their assemblies. Some type of "CTF"
is also the best approach to develop the unified field theory, the dream of
Einstein. How can we unify physics unless everything tends to emerge and
become one again repeatedly into the same field. That is CTF. The
universality of energy conservation emerges automatically. Emergent
particles and propagating EM waves are perturbations of the CTF, linear and
non-linear, respectively. These entities can exchange energies. Since, the
tension field cannot assimilate the perturbation energy delivered on to it;
the energy can only be exchanged amongst the emergent entities; and the
conservation of energy becomes a natural law of the universe.
Yes, 100% energy of the universe is held by the space as a very complex
tension field. So, we need to start thinking what are the various possible
mechanisms that can create (impart) such an aggregate of complex tension
properties. Which also begs the question: What is this primordial space
occupying thing? How did it acquire these diversity of tensions? The enquiry
is always endless! That is the perpetual challenge for the human mind so it
can evolve continuously. This demand of nature for continuous evolution
(changes) of our minds make a very large segment of global population to
cling to un-changing religions. And that is how all of our cultures have
been promoting the Messiah Complex (the belief in working orders) for
millennia. Since all of us need a sense of stability to live our daily life;
we all have some genetic propensity to Messiah Complex: The tendency to
accept a working epistemic theory as the final theory.
I am of strong opinion that the advances we have achieved over the last few
millennia, specifically, the last few hundred years; it is time to pull out
all the foundational postulates behind all the working theories and then try
re-casting them in many different ways based on the cumulative and latest
experimental knowledge, that we have gathered so far.
Only collaboration among a large group of open-minded scientists can carry
out this task forward through several generations. It is not the job of a
single Einstein.
Sincerely,
Chandra.
PS: I have attached two my conference papers: where I have "gone out on the
limb" to challenge myself and challenge others to over-ride our intrinsic
Messiah Complex!
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:43 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Hi John W
The Tipsy Crow sounds like it fits the needs. Looking forward to it. I
have to arrive late, on Monday evening, due to business responsibilities,
but hopefully we can all get together several times during the conference.
A bunch of opinion follows.
So if a photon occupies a single point in spacetime, then all energy is
traveling, and always has traveled at c, so all energy, if it originated at
a single point, like the big bang, is still at that single point is
spacetime, so the universe occupies a single point in spacetime. ???
Nope my friend. Doesn't add up. For this and many other reasons.
Perhaps "absorber" is the wrong word for space, but "container" is correct.
Space contains and manages all energy. It places the specific limitations
on the propagation of all energy, including photons. It keeps light from
traveling infinitely fast, proven experimentally. So space "contains" light
in more than one sense of the word. Space displays the following constraints
on light:
And similarly, so that light exhibits a finite velocity, (and exhibits mass
effects). So space constrains light, and light has momentum, so one result
of these relationships is simply that light displays mass effects. Energy
density in space defines the values for the "density" of space p and the
transverse modulus of space. This is true because energy in space causes
mass effects . p, and energy in space stretches the "tensors" of space.
Space therefore constrains and contains light, and space constrains and
contains all energy. The properties of space, the constraints of space,
allow the existence of light, and cause the confinement of energy into
fermionic particles. So space is not that "simple". However space is an
elegant and comprehensive container for all energy.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 10:41 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Adam K; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Manohar .; Joakim Pettersson; Ariane
Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Hello Chip,
The feeling is mutual. Looking forwards to meeting you too.
Do not get the impression that I do not think that energy in any form has
mass like effects. Pinned energy manifests as mass. Space, though, is not a
"container". Space, by itself, is too simple. It is the derivatives of
space-time with respect to space-time that introduce the phase changes
needed to keep things confined. This is the stuff of the "boxes" that
confine energy. Do not think too simply! Space, by itself, cannot (and does
not experimentally) absorb light. Look around you! You need the right
topology, and for that to be filled with energy, before you have a
space-time capable of interacting with light.
Regards, John.
P.S. have been doing some research on possible meeting places. I think the
"Tipsy Crow" on j - 5th may be interesting place. Good reviews and good
beers. There are three floors. Upstairs seems the best. They have an
"exchange rate" on beers , wth populars going up and others down, so if you
have a preference for a particular style let Martin and I know and we will
try to get in your favourites at a good rate. I think we may well find
ourselves there on Saturday night for any early comers. There is a cover,
but you can book in for nothing at their website early on Saturday for free.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 2:56 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Hi John W
I am so looking forward to our discussions at the conference.
It seems that space is the container for all energy, in any form. The
properties of space manage and control all energy. Martin's "Light is heavy"
paper illustrates part of the point, that energy, in any form, in space, has
mass-like effects. And for me, that also implies that light has an
independent existence in space once emitted. Additionally, why state that
matter is made of the same stuff as light, and then ignore the relativistic
consequences of that statement? For if that statement is true, then there
is a clear Euclidian definition for 3 space, and a clear cause for time, as
we perceive it.
So I am coming to believe that Chandra's CTF is more plausible than 4 space,
and that 4 space is only a representation of the interaction of matter
(fermions) with space. And then time, as we know and measure it, is the
result of the interaction of particles, caused by the speed of light.
This would mean that space itself is a perfectly satisfactory "absorber" of
emitted radiation, because space is the "container" and "manager" of all
energy.
The Complex in Complex Tension Field, for me includes some torsion and
"polarization" effects as David mentioned in an earlier email.
For many reasons therefore I do not believe the "single-point-in-spacetime"
"photon exchange" is real at all. For me, this approach causes many more
problems than it solves.
And for many additional reasons, I feel that entanglement is an illusion
caused by misinterpretation of the results of experiment, and
misunderstanding the basic nature of light and extended spatial nature of
particles and their fields.
The cheapest solution to the HBT effect is Maxwellian waves.
I really admire your work, and the progress you have made in in that work,
but I still feel that you have this one wrong. Maybe you will be able to
show me why it must be so, but so far it still seems contrived to me.
With respect and warm regards.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 7:59 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Michael Wright; Manohar .; Joakim
Pettersson; Ariane Mandray
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Now this is an interesting bunch of questions. Right to the heart of the
matter indeed!
I think it is wise to pause and go back here to the origin of dialectic
itself - the Greek invention to begin to split up the world and systematise
it. The idea that a question could be asked sufficient to split the answer
into two possibilities, one true one false. I think the answer to "is the
photon quantised or is it the emitter and/or absorber" is ... "all three"
because "all three" are part of the single process that we call photon
exchange. Also the word "photon" as opposed to "light" simply CARRIES the
meaning of "quantised". This is a trite way to end an argument, but does
not say anything about the deep understanding of why and how it is
"quantised". Saying "quantised is often giving a word to sum up a lack of
knowledge, to encompass a lack of understanding into a simple label. We
humans have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. There is an awful
lot of room for bullshit here and it is easy to fool oneself into thinking
something has deep meaning, when in fact it is contingent on the
mathematical framework in which one considers it. To illustrate this, just
look at my light paper! The maths quantises continuous light if it is more
than a few wavelengths long - but is the maths right? Who knows?
Coming back to experiment, it may be nice to think about an emitter emitting
a single photon bullet, later absorbed by an absorber, with the photon
having an independent existence in between but this is not only not what is
observed in experiment, but the whole body of evidence contradicts this
simple view. Emitter and absorber ARE experimentally entangled. Antibunching
happens - but it part of a whole process. There is also the Hanbury-Brown
Twiss effect to consider. The "interaction with absorber" theory also plays
a role - bringing in the question of causality itself. As Martin says this
is a huge question.
Remember also that the whole theme of the bi-ennial conference Chandra has
been organising for more than a decade has been to try to answer the very
point of "what is a photon?". The fact that a conclusive answer has not yet
emerged tells the story.
My own view is that the emitter AND absorber need to be quantised, but
quantised in the same way. There is a need to look at Phat photons as a good
experimental probe here and also, as I suggest in my "light" paper, emitters
and absorbers in the fractional quantum Hall regime may have fractional
quantisation E = 1/3 h nu (you heard it here first!). This would show,
conclusively, the role the emitter and absorber play, but still not settle
the question posed properly as I think the fractional quantisation itself is
not yet properly understood..
I think to make proper progress we need to develop a better theory that
fits all the facts - just and no more. A theory that lays bare the nature of
the emitter, the absorber, and the intermediating process - all at once and
from a deeper underlying basis. A theory that allows the whole process to be
understood within a single framework.
Should be fun trying this, even if we cannot sort it all out next week!
Regards, John W.
_____
From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Dear David, Richard and Chip,
Thanks for the comments, what we are dealing with here is quite a difficult
question indeed.
First of all Chip, by your remark I can see you do really get the essence of
and reason for my question, that is going to be helpfull.
Richard, certainly most of what you say is true and even relevant but does
not yet hit on the deep implications of the possible answer of my question.
I must emphasize that do not denie any of the experimental facts commonly or
less commonly known about quantum optics, etcetera.
Bunching and anti-bunching are true phenomena that shows transfer of energy
goes in blips, and with certain statistics associated, in complete
accordance of what we may think is a photon. Indeed, this is what IS a
photon, this is what defines ot experimentally.
What I am saying is that one can jump to conclusions and imagine a simple
picture of a photon being some quantum particle to explain the outcome of
the experiments (and for that purpose it will, always, work perfectly).
Alternatively one can take a more involved point of view by asigning an
essential role to the emitter and absorber to explain the experiment. Being
lazy, that doesn't seem to be a comfortable option, but it does open the
door to solving deeper questions:
What is the nature of the photon?
The alternative view relieves the photon from having on board everything to
define it. That is the crucial insight.
After a century in which no person has been able to answer the question,
this seems to be a viable option. On top of that, it solves non-locality
issues.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 3 aug. 2015 om 06:13 heeft Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> > het volgende geschreven:
Hi Chip,
There's a long history and fight among the founders of quantum mechanics
since 1926 about whether quantum processes can be treated as continuous
(Schrodinger and others) or discrete quantum jumps (Heisenberg and others).
Their two quantum calculation methods (wave mechanics and matrix mechanics)
were shown to be mathematically equivalent. And Einstein's ideas in 1905
about the light quantum (later named photon) as a carrier of light energy
weren't really generally accepted until 1923 with the Compton effect where
photons seem to act like billiard balls in terms of their energy and
momentum interactions with electrons. Semi-Classical physics argues that
emission and absorption processes are quantized but energy transmission
through radiation remains classical. Most physicists don't accept
semi-classical ideas any more and accept that the photon carries quantized
energy given by E=hf even when photons are not being emitted or absorbed.
QED supposedly solved the problem by renormalizing infinities to finite
numbers. Dirac was never satisfied with this approach (ugly math), but QED
does give very precise answers. So it's a long and continuing story. I think
that Compton wavelength-sized electron models are a key to deeper
understanding of all this, because this length is often treated as a cutoff
length in calculating the force between two electrons which might otherwise
be treated as point charges associated with infinite energies.
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Richard
The question of whether the "photon" is inherently quantized, or just
appears quantized to us, through our observation of the reaction of the
quantized emitters and absorbers, seems to be an important aspect for
creating a full understanding of the nature of "photons", and their reaction
with particles.
The process of emission is a quantized process, as is the process of
absorption. But since a photon can be any number of wavelengths, depending
on the quantized configuration of the emission process, it seems that the
photon itself cannot be strongly quantized, and may have no inherent
quantization at all, meaning no forces in itself which cause it to be
quantized. We know that fermions have forces which cause their resonant
nature and quantization.
If I understand Martin's challenge, it is to show that the photon must be
inherently quantized, and not just quantized because of the emitter and
absorber. ??
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 Richard Gauthier
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2015 7:54 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Martin,
That's fine. But why focus on the photon as not a particle but a process?
The emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber are processes also and not
particles. So what is the source of existence and stability of all these?
Everything is process. So where do we go from here? Quantum effects are also
process. Does that not make them less physical?
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:
Richard, not true. How does it work?
It only proves the end result, the quantized transfer, but not whether the
field is intrinsically quantized.
There is an aweful lot of shit and confusion and parottery ( if that is a
concept) about this. So, please dont quote it unless you can really explain
why it makes the difference.
My position is actually that this is impossible at the deepest level!
But the consequence of that is that it is also impossible to make a
description of a photon as being a particle! Because it is only a process,
and that does not require existence and stability by itself, it aquires it
within the context of the exchange of energy and angular momentum by
emitter, electromagnetic field and absorber. This is why the process can
have any number of wavelenghts, any polarization and be entangled.
Cheers, Martin
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
Op 3 aug. 2015 om 02:14 heeft Richard Gauthier <
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com> richgauthier at gmail.com> het volgende
geschreven:
Hello Martin,
Thanks for your challenge to the group.
I'm quoting from the Wikipedia article "Photon" at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
: "Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of
quantum mechanics, many further experiments
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-2> [2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#cite_note-3> [3] starting with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering> Compton scattering of
single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's
hypothesis that light itself is
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_%28physics%29> quantized. "
The abstract of reference [2] titled
Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence,
H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel
Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 - Published 12 September 1977
says: "The phenomenon of antibunching of photoelectric counts has been
observed in resonance fluorescence experiments in which sodium atoms are
continuously excited by a dye-laser beam. It is pointed out that, unlike
photoelectric bunching, which can be given a semiclassical interpretation,
antibunching is understandable only in terms of a quantized electromagnetic
field. The measurement also provides rather direct evidence for an atom
undergoing a quantum jump."
You seem to be claiming that there is no definite experimental proof that
light itself is quantized. Does the above experiment contradict your claim?
You may say that the above experiment or any single experiment or group of
experiments cannot be completely conclusive. Well, is any physics experiment
completely conclusive about a theory? Are you asking the impossible when you
ask for conclusive experimental proof?
all the best,
Richard
On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Mark, Martin van der <
<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
wrote:
Dear Andrew,
I have looked at the questionnaire and realized that the one, most important
question is missing!
Question 2 is closest to it, but not quite as straight to the point.
The question is to my opinion the most fundamental of any to be asked in the
context of the nature of the photon. It is: Does quantization of the
transfer of electromagnetic energy and angular momentum (the process that is
mediated by what we call "photon") resides in the electromagnetic field
itself or in the emitter and absorber? Or something else, perhaps.
Anyone may take a position of what he or she likes best of course, and I
have my preference of what I would think it to be.
But if one takes a position as being the truth, it should be accompanied by
reference to experimental proof.
I bet that no one can come up with any reference that is conclusive about
this! It is the pink elephant in the room.if it is there we should make it
explicit!!!!
Best regards, 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 Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 1 augustus 2015 6:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Mary Fletcher
Subject: Re: [General] Questionnaire
Dear John M,
Looking forward to talking w you at the conference.
I recognized that most of us have too much to say on most of the items.
Could you perhaps provide chapter or page of sections of your book that
pertain to the questions? That would give an interested party a handy guide
to the more detailed info and to your book.
Andrew
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 6:02 PM, < <mailto:john at macken.com> john at macken.com>
wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I am currently in Iceland and starting tomorrow I will be in Greenland for 7
days. Most of that time I will definitely be out of email contact and the
rest of the time it is questionable if I will have any internet. I will be
returning to the US just before the conference. I will arrive in San Diego
about noon on Monday, Aug. 10. Therefore I will miss the Sunday night
get-together.
I have found it very hard to write the concise answers required for the
questionnaire. The reason is that I have much more detailed answers for each
of the questions than most other people in the group. For example, I have
just finished what I believe is the final substantive draft of my book
titled "The Universe is Only Spacetime". It is now over 400 pages. The
portion of the book addressed by the questions extends from chapter 4 to
chapter 11. This is a total of 134 pages. Furthermore, I get into
substantial quantitative detail and proofs which make short answers
impossible.
For example, with electrons I have explained and quantified two components
of the electron model. This model does not derive either the electron's
Compton frequency or the fine structure constant. However, if these two
numbers are provided, I can derive the electron's energy, inertia,
gravitational curvature of spacetime, gravitational force with another
fundamental particle, and electrostatic force with another fundamental
particle. This derivation comes from the properties of spacetime and the
particle model. If I just proceed from first principles, I generate the
electrostatic force if both particles had Planck charge rather than
elementary charge e. In an earlier email, John W. considered this to be a
defect. He said that I had missed the correct value by more than a factor of
100 (missed by 1/α). This is ironic because I was quite happy with this
answer. I was calculation the force assuming a coupling constant of 1, not
the electron's force with a mysterious coupling constant of alpha (α).
I believe that this is the first time that a model of a fundamental particle
has been able to generate the gravitational force and the electrostatic
force even assuming a coupling constant of 1. If you know of any other model
which has passed this test, I would be interested in hearing about it.
I have not mentioned it before, but my model also generates the strong
force. The model also produces asymptotic freedom when quarks are bound
together into hadrons and explains why the strong force increases as the
separation distance is increased beyond the natural distance which produces
asymptotic freedom. (all in the book.)
On another point, I believe that any model of particles that does not
include waves which modulate the rate of time will never be able to generate
either curved spacetime or the gravitational force. It is my understanding
that Chandra's CTF model only involves the 3 spatial dimensions without
involving time. If he introduces time into his model, then my model and his
model would be very close.
Finally, I object to characterizing an electron as being a confined photon.
I believe that a photon and an electron are both made of the same
fundamental building block. Therefore photons can be converted to
electron/positron pairs and vice versa. They are closely related, but saying
that an electron is an oscillating confined photon implies that a photon is
the fundamental building block of the universe or at least particles. It
also implies that we will never be able to understand an electric field, a
magnetic field or a charge in terms of a distortion of a more fundamental
component.
I explain all of these in terms of a distortion of energetic spacetime. I
claim that an electric field, a magnetic field and even a gravitational
field have both an oscillating component and a non-oscillating component.
I give equations for these in the book. I show that the oscillating
component gives the correct energy density to the electric and magnetic
field. I also propose that a gravitational field has an energy density. I
combine this with the energy of the spacetime field and show how the
interaction generates a black hole when the energy density of the
gravitational field at a particular frequency matches the energy density of
spacetime at that frequency.
While I have finished this most recent revision of the book, it has not been
loaded onto the website yet. There is a problem with the website that is
preventing new material from being loaded onto the website. This problem is
being worked on by one of my sons and should be fixed in a few days.
John M.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Andrew Meulenberg" < <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com> mules333 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 10:57am
To: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "Mary Fletcher" < <mailto:marycfletcher at gmail.com>
marycfletcher at gmail.com>
Subject: [General] Questionnaire
Dear Folks,
We have 4 contributors so far. It is very illuminating. I hope that at some
point we can get convergence on at least some of the questions. John W. has
added a question that everyone can add to the end of the list:
QUESTION 14: By what mechanism is the electron confined?
I do not have time to answer the good comments in the individual emails
right now (wife and premature twins, Grant and Remington, are in the
hospital and all doing well). However, I hope to have time at the Conference
to do so in person for those present.
I will not be arriving until 8:16PM on Sunday evening, so I cannot join the
group (where ever) until about 9PM. Please do not wait until then to get
started. I will be leaving Friday evening.
My time and schedule are somewhat constrained by that of Bob Hudgins and
Mary Fletcher, who will arrive earlier in the day. We are planning on
renting a car and staying at a motel in South Bay where the rates are more
reasonable. if anyone else is doing something similar, please let me know.
Best to all,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
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>
_____
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: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: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>
_______________________________________________
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: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 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/20150804/8f66257a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 596 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150804/8f66257a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150804/8f66257a/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 294 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150804/8f66257a/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150804/8f66257a/attachment-0003.png>
More information about the General
mailing list