[General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and people's views

chandra chandra at phys.uconn.edu
Sat Feb 21 06:50:57 PST 2015


Andrew: I am very glad to see that some of you are constructing questions
that forces us to think in terms of ongoing physical processes happening in
nature; which I personally express as Interaction Process Mapping
Epistemology (IPM-E). 

     Let us keep on developing the potential structure of discussion at the
San Diego conference.

     

Framing the question determines the answer! However, the questions are
created out of our conscious and/or unconscious PURPOSE of perpetually doing
better and better (evolution!). Of course, it is done by our neural network,
the human thinking mind, influenced by individual gene-set, collective
cultures and strong self-disciplined minds. This is why it is critically
important to promote how to become self-aware of our individualistic
thinking logics. Logically self-consistent serious thoughts will always find
some defendable explanation for observed natural phenomena. But that set of
logics (postulates) will, for us, will remain always INCOMPLETE, because we
have constructed them based upon insufficient knowledge of the universe.
Yet, we must keep on evolving by iteratively improving upon the original
logic-set. This is also the reason why we must consciously encourage
diversity of thinking. Our different logic templates will extract out
different aspects of ontological reality being used by nature; albeit mixed
up by mental "chaff" appearing as logically self-consistent "reality"
through our favorite theories and experiments. Remember that theory
determines what we "can" measure and none of our measurements can extract
complete information about anything of nature that we are trying to study
(explore)! 

      This is high time in the evolution of physics teaching that we make
the students become consciously aware of their personal belief system; which
is at the core of their enquiring minds (how they frame questions to
understand nature).

     Sorry for philosophizing! But, I am trying to keep my role as the
provocateur to establish the platform for perpetually iterative thinking in
physics, a paradigm that does not have to go through repeated disruptive
REVOLUTIONS as our past history. Faster, iterative and corrective feedback
will make our evolution steady. This will save many brilliant minds from
producing nothing useful anchored to ontological reality, but, nonetheless,
producing many brilliant concepts and theories.

    I have attached the review of a book on "Light:..." by Kelly, which I
have written in AJP. I praise the book for its comprehensiveness about the
state of current theoretical understanding of light. However, I have also
expressed my overall view against the collective "blind alley" thinking;
which ignores the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) built into our theories. We
must not generalize Gamma-Nucleon interaction results as THE platform to
understand rest of the EM wave spectrum; they are dramatically different
from the standpoint of detector-wave interaction processes.

    We have recently discussed about the response of a Nobel laureate. In
the near future, I will give brief summary of my encounters with over
half-a-dozen Laureates, starting with Willis Lamb in 1976, after I
experimentally convinced myself about the NIW-property of all waves in the
absence of interacting materials. 

     Let us keep up the high spirit of our enquiring minds! We are all
important. We are all productive and useful. We are all have developed
diverse logically self-consistent thinking templates. This is the most
healthy aspect of positive human evolution. A la Newton, let us keep
standing on the shoulders of our predecessor giants to keep on increasing
our knowledge horizon; instead of succumbing to our evolutionary
"messiah-complex" by bowing down at the feet of our great forefathers. It is
high time for us to identify and articulate all the founding postulates
behind all the working theories and recast them in light of all the current
knowledge we have acquired. Physics is not non-evolving religion! And,
inspire the next generation to do the same on the improvements done by us.
The foundation of the edifice of the Physics has not been SET by the current
working theories. Human minds and the methodology of our enquiry have not
yet reached the stage to SET the foundation of evolution of scientific
knowledge. It is a bit un-settling; but our thinking process must keep on
evolving. Humans are thinking animals!

Our evolution is now driven by our cultural concepts in which we are totally
immersed. Hence, the "Urgency of evolution-process-congruent thinking" to
anchor our thinking to reality.

      If we do not explicitly frame our questions to access reality of
nature; we will never find it!

     

      I apologize in advance if some you of you think I am just wasting your
time!

 

Cheers!

 

Sincerely,

Chandra.

 

            

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 8:34 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: Re: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and
people's views

 

Dear Martin,

Thank you for the input.  I look forward to learning from you in many areas
(I guess I need to start by reading your papers).  Right now, in my cold
fusion work, I am looking at the effects on an electron when it is within a
fermi of a proton. So, both your comments on the size of the electron (under
those conditions) and the weak interaction are particularly important to me.
I think that both this work on the electron and the theories of cold fusion
will open up physics in the same manner as did relativity & QM in the last
century.

My interest in the Pauli Principle fits with the model we have for the
beginning process(es) in cold fusion. Perhaps you can answer a question that
no one seems able to address: "when do two fermions become a boson?" It is
possible to consider superconductivity, which does not require the electrons
to be close and electron-positron annihilation, which requires them to be
very close. What about two electrons in an atomic s-orbit (averaging an
angstrom apart)? What about two electrons in a deep Dirac level orbit (~2
fermi radius, so 4 fm apart)? What about the proton and an electron? Physics
seems to accept what is convenient and reject what cannot be proven.

We need a list of all the papers submitted and who will be there. I look
forward to the sessions and the gatherings before & after.

Andrew

_____________________________

On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> wrote:

Andrew, good work.

I would like to add to: "4) electron properties derived from photon": 

.         anomalous gyromagnetic ratio, g-2 

.         point-like interaction

.         Pauli principle

.         weak interaction

At the moment I am (with John W) trying to prepare a paper o the Pauli
Principle, we have had  some idea about this since 1994 (see ICHEP'94
conference). The weak interaction is perhaps too illusive yet in a photon
model, so very interesting to test creativity perhaps. Note that all other
features in the list have been covered already in our 1997 paper. 

 

There is a little anecdote about this, I was invited to Hendrik Casimir's
home in 1993 (the Casimir force Casimir, indeed), He had retired more than 2
decades before from being the CEO of Philips Research and was, at 84, still
very active. It was quite some honour to me and it was because he had heard
about "the electron as a photon in toroidal topology" paper of John and me
and was quite pleased with the derivation of the De Broglie wavelength and
its cause as described in that paper (the original version was written in
1991, it took us a while to get it published). I had a long talk with him on
black body radiation from wavelength size structures as well as on the
so-called quantum cutter. Both where seen as very important for making more
efficient lamps.

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
<resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype
_logo.png> +31 40 2747548
<resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype
_logo.png> +31 40 2747548
<resource://skype_ff_extension-at-jetpack/skype_ff_extension/data/call_skype
_logo.png> +31 40 2747548

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bmartin.van.der.mark>
=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Andrew
Meulenberg
Sent: zaterdag 21 februari 2015 9:03
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: P.G. Vaidya
Subject: [General] Listing topics on "photon-to-electron" discussion and
people's views

 

Dear Folk,

I just finished glancing through Viv's paper. (I won't have time to read it
for a while).

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t
<http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8Q
FjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%2
6filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg
=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcrw&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU>
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press
.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D3567%26filename%3DPPI-4-Robinson_7102%26
fileType%3Dpdf&ei=XrzaVN3yM5LaoASdvIBI&usg=AFQjCNEgMis5p6Np1a0a_LqfbJG-HZMcr
w&bvm=bv.85761416,d.cGU

 

Like so many papers of what has been written by people in this group, I
think that we are all seeing the same vision (not necessarily thru the same
glasses). On most of the topics, I could not express the many important
points as well as she did, or John W. did, or John D. did, etc. in their
various writings. The number of subtopics in the field is immense. The
number of people (and egos of independent minds?) involved is already large
and growing. How do we move it forward?

We don't have time to sort it all out with presentation of many individual
papers (on one day at a single conference)  that will say much the same
thing. We don't have time to sort it all out with joint discussions of all
of the topics during that week. Chandra has done almost single-handedly a
great job on organizing and running the Nature of Light series. It has been
growing over the years. I think that we all want to do things faster with
this new direction. We now have the critical mass to bring it all together.
Chandra has provided the 'bootstrap' to help us get it off the ground.

Chip and Chandra have listed some topics that need to be covered. John W.
started to answer some of them. These are points for discussion when we get
together at the conference (and even before). In the meantime, I would
propose that we do several things that will organize our diverse thoughts,
but joint effort. I would welcome someone volunteering for the work
necessary and for other suggestions and contributions of ideas and effort.
If we can use the website as a repository of contributions and a 'poster
board' of the contributors and presentations, then we might be able to
multiply the benefits of this gathering and its impact on the physics
community.

We need a poster paper that will:

1.	identify the main photonic electron concepts
2.	List session presentations and presenters at the conference

*	title of paper (s) and 
*	main emphasis of the presentation

3.	list topics that identify what we consider to be the important
points.

*	it will contain sub topics and the subtopics will have 'positions'
(specific concepts or simply pro & con)
*	each subtopic position will have a primary 'advocate' (if one
exists) and 
*	Each member of the group (not just those at the conference) will
have a column that will be filled in for each postion (e.g., green for
agree, red for disagree, yellow for mixed, blank for undecided, 'O' for
thinking that the position, subtopic, or topic has no added value.

4.	provide a decision process that: 

*	'encourages' each author to chose a topic (or topics) to emphasize
in their presentation at the conference. 
*	The papers probably will have to follow the abstract submitted. They
can be more complete. However, 
*	the presentations can avoid great repetition by having a couple
general views at the beginning of the session(s) and then limiting slides to
the particular point of interest.

5.	propose an additional conference  to carry on what we are starting
this year.

*	for alternating years?
*	In Europe?
*	SPIE, or other sponsor
*	title?

6.	. - - - - 

As a starting point, the topics list for people to vote on could include:

1.	Photon properties leading to the electron

*	Potentials in a photon (AM & BH)  
*	fields of a photon
*	energy (mass) density of a photon (AM)
*	self-focusing as result of high mass-density distortion of space
*	total internal reflection
*	Imbert-Fedorov effect

2.	Coherent photon interactions   

*	Constructive interference (Bosonic nature)
*	Destructive interference (Fermionic nature)
*	in-between interference (non- interaction?)
*	incoherent interference (non- interaction?)

3.	Photon-to-electron conversion

*	 self coherence
*	photon bending in an inhomogenous E-field
*	'rectification' of light
*	electron-positron coupling via wormhole
*	etc.

4.	Electron properties derived from photon:

*	total energy 
*	EM energy
*	charge (potential & fields)
*	mass (charge & energy equivalent)
*	Compton wavelength
*	deBroglie wavelength?
*	ang. momentum
*	spin
*	relativistic response
*	predictions, different from known properties?
*	??

5.	Others?

Contributions to this list, from others in the group, should be added in
italics. Phrasing these listed items in the form of true/false questions may
not be possible; but, it is worth a try so that people can quickly answer
and give a picture of where we stand as a subgroup.

This set of posters is not just for the subgroup. It will act as a guide for
the group of attendees and speakers who have not thought deeply about the
electron as based on photons.

Andrew

 

  _____  

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 mules333 at gmail.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.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/20150221/47b3c442/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2015.1_BookRevw._Light-Kelly.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 55888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150221/47b3c442/attachment-0001.pdf>


More information about the General mailing list