[General] Photon

[John Macken]

I have two questions about the panel discussion:

1)     Is it possible to present a short video or Power Point charts?  A 4 minute presentation can only be made with the help of visual aids.

2)     Are we supposed to prepare a technical paper presenting our ideas on the internal structure of an electron? I joined this group late and have never been able to get a clear answer to this question.

 

John M.

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 2:55 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: (h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl)
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Dear Panel Participants: 

 

1.      Current Panel: As it stands now, our current panel consists of: (i) John Duffield, (ii) John Macken, (iii)  John Williamson, (iv) David Mathes, (v) Richard Gauthier, (vi) Charles Akin, (vii) Martin van der Mark, (viii) Andrew Meulenberg (remote participation) (ix) Chandra Roychoudhuri. [Not attending: (x) Vivian Robinson]. Have I missed anybody?

2.      Moderator: Chandra Roychoudhuri [(i) Originally, Andrew was supposed to have been the co-moderator. But, he is not physically attending the conference. (ii) Rest assure that I would not try to impose my personal view as the moderator! Our ongoing discussions clearly indicate that my view is very different from the rest of the group; which is exciting for me as an organizer of an out-of-box conference series.] 

3.      Discussion Title: The title has been changed slightly to accommodate some criticism by one of our conference participants: “Are Electrons Oscillating Photons; or, Oscillating “Vacuum”; or something different?” 

4.      Remote Participation Coordinator: Mary Fletcher has been volunteered by Andrew to coordinate Andrew’s remote participation. I will talk with SPIE to find the right person with whom Mary can be in touch with.  [Marry, please, let me know, via separate personal email, what else I need to know and understand.] 

5.      Panel Discussion Time Distribution: Currently we have two hours, 1 to 3 PM. We probably should ask SPIE to extend the duration to 4PM, with 3 hours duration. One possible approach is to give each member 4-minute presentation plus 6-minute follow-on discussion (total 9 members time 10 minutes = 90 minutes). This will assure that nobody will be left out to the very end of discussion. Then, the open discussion for another 90 minutes will take place. I am assuming that authors will be taking their personal notes which will go in their articles for the section on Panel Discussion. Feel free to suggest better ideas/approaches. 

6.      Presenting the results of discussion in the proceeding: To minimize time-consuming editorial activities, let me suggest the following procedure:

All panel members present their key personal work in the respective (already accepted) conference paper(s) where they should site their separate “Panel Discussion Paper” (PDP). In the separate and individual “PDP”, the authors discuss the summary of similarities and differences of their personal approaches compared to the other panel members. This would also be convenient for the general readers. They will read the core ideas in the main conference paper and read the author’s comparative views in the special “Panel Discussion” section. We have used a similar approach for an earlier Panel Discussion. Please, feel free to suggest any better ideas that you may have.

 

Sincerely,

Chandra.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150613/d678184d/attachment.htm>