[General] FW: Nobelist dialogue

[chandra]

general at natureoflightandparticles.org

 

Dear David SJ., and All: Let us converge on sending all of our responses through the “general” web based email, using the above email address. I am now deliberately forwarding my response to David SJ’s email through the “general” email. Once we all start responding to the “general” email, we will have all the correspondence archived on the  <mailto:general at natureoflightandparticles.org> web: natureoflightandparticles.org. 
     Everybody with their personalized pass word have access to the archive. For further enquiry, please, contact my student, Michael Ambroselli: ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu

Chandra.

 

Pertaining to this particular subject matter:

Dear David SJ., and Richard G.: Let us not feel frustrated so easily. Sometimes it takes a whole century to turn around a century old mis-conception! But we have to keep on working. We have this group. We have a bigger group running the conference for 12 years. We will be holding the 6th biennial conference this August. We do have the momentum of a group who are open to diverse ideas!

 

Chandra.

 

From: David Saint John [mailto:etherdais at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 6:04 PM
To: Richard Gauthier
Cc: John Duffield; Adam K; John Williamson; chandra; A. F. Kracklauer; Stephen Leary; Ralph Penland; wfhagen at gmail.com; Hans De Raedt; Mark, Martin van der; Timothy Drysdale; CSc.; Jonathan Weaver; Rachel; Robert Hadfield; robert hudgins; Vivian Robinson; ninasobieraj; ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu; 'doc. Ing. Radomil Matoušek; Mayank Drolia; Andrew Meulenberg; Fiona van der Burgt; Michael Wright; Nick Green
Subject: Re: Nobelist dialogue

 

Dear Richard (and others),

 

Ugh.  I don't quite understand when the transition happened, but at some point statistical behavior may have became as important to particle identity as mass or charge or polarization -- fermions and bosons became nouns rather than verbs.  I suspect this has gotten under a few peoples skin, perhaps helping to create parastatistics, anyons, and related ideas.  

 

He might be right about your inability to communicate with each other as his initial assertion appears to be an unfortunate consequence of the ossification of concepts in physics.  I concur that a photon obeys BE statistics under observed conditions, and that electrons obey FD statistics (perhaps unless they form cooper pairs, in which case things seem a bit fuzzy), but these statistical behaviors are contextualized consequences of many interacting species and wouldn't be the first topic one addresses if you're trying to discuss an underlying mechanism.  Dismissal is an unfortunate regularity with these subjects, but you're not alone.  

 

I think the metaphor of the cathedral and the bazaar (http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/) applies remarkably well to physics, and the response of 'a tower of the cathedral' to any ideas (even from other cathedral towers) is generally negative - especially if there's any trace of a thought that threatens part of their foundation.  With enough effort and attention, the bazaar will eventually break through.

 

Best,

-David

 

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:

John and all,

 

A short dialogue follows that I just concluded with a physics Nobel laureate. Comments are welcome.

 

Hello Professor,
   A Ph.D. student at IQC suggested that I might meet you this summer at IQC to discuss a rather out-of-the-box idea -- that the electron is a charged photon having the de Broglie wavelength. I have an article on this topic which I will be presenting at the April APS meeting in Baltimore and at the SPIE photonics conference in San Diego in July at a session on “What is the photon”. Currently the article is on academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>  at https://www.academia.edu/10527918/The_Electron_is_a_Charged_Photon_with_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength and I have attached the article for your convenience.
  Is this a topic that you would be interested in discussing?

 

Dear Mr.Gauthier,

   If your theory can explain clearly (as shown rather unambiguously by experiment) why the electron is  a fermion and the photon a boson, I think a discussion might be worth while, otherwise not. With best wishes,

       

 

Hello Professor,

    The short answer in my charged photon hypothesis is that a charged photon (with charge + or - e) is a fermion while an uncharged photon is a boson. So there is zero contradiction with unambiguous experiments about the electron (my hypothesized charged photon, with charge -e for an electron and +e for a positron)  being a fermion and the usual uncharged photon being a boson. The next level answer is that the idea that an electron could be a charged photon was apparently missed by de Broglie and others when de Broglie formulated E=mc^2=hf for a resting electron and E= gamma mc^2 = hf for a moving electron. This is the energy equation for a photon that has a wavelength lambda = h/(gamma m c), and that may be helically circulating as mathematically suggested by Hestene’s and Rivas’ analysis of the Dirac equation (referenced in my article) which predicts a light-speed helical motion of the electron’s charge, and is supported by Dirac’s own claim that the electron moves at light-speed but only sub-luminal speed is detected for it. It’s a short step to the de Broglie wavelength h/(gamma mv) for the longitudinal wavelength of the light-speed helical charged photon model of the electron, and the proposal that quantum wave functions for the electron are generated by this model.

 

Dear Mr.Gauthier,

    I’m afraid that our ideas about what constitutes a persuasive argument in physics seem to be so different that I doubt whether a meeting would be useful.Sorry,

          

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150218/85f22e40/attachment.htm>