[General] FW: Nobelist dialogue

Wed Feb 18 23:03:50 PST 2015

Dear Richard (and others)

It may help you to understand the Nobel Laureates etc, if you visit the website below. It is President Eisenhower's valedictory address to the nation as he was leaving the White House. Of particular note is his comments about scientific research ≈ 9 min 30 to 11 min. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

His telling statement was: 

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific/technological elite.” 

Standard model physicists have captured public policy on fundamental science. They will not tolerate alternate ideas as they try to convince the public that what astronomers see represents only 4% of what has to be in the universe for their theories to explain them. In other words their theory of the observed universe differs by 24 times the mass of the observed universe. That doesn't mention the 10**60 + other universes and multiple undetected spatial dimensions they also need to explain what experimentalists measure. Need I go on. 

They have the ear of government to get all the funds. They point to the great technological advances, claiming credit for what they explained after experimentalists detected the property, as justification for their continued work. No one should be surprised that is the reaction from any member of that elite. They have no desire to lose their status or have their ideas questioned. 

There is a huge amount of resistance among the general public and scientific community against the standard models. Chandra, it is good to see that you are prepared to consider alternative viewpoints. It helps significantly to get an audience among fellow scientists.

Cheers,

Viv Robinson

On 19/02/2015, at 10:53 AM, "chandra" <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:

> 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 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 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,
>           
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at etpsemra.com.au
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?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/20150219/540a5f08/attachment-0001.htm>