[General] Photon

[Chip Akins]

Hi John W and Chandra

 

I too am an engineer most of the time. So I agree with John W regarding
discussions of the engineering implications.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2015 9:16 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: (h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl)
Subject: Re: [General] Photon

 

Dear Chandra,

I, like Martin,  am looking forwards very much to the discussion and to the
conference and have booked flights and  a hotel already. 

I think we may be missing a trick here though. As, primarily, an engineer
and given that many of our group and many of the folk in the wider
conference will be engineers, I think we should consider talking about the
engineering consequences of the notion that material particles may be
constituted by oscillating photons, oscillating "vacuum" or "something
different". What does this mean, potentially, for the development of new
kinds of materials, the engineering of new kinds of devices and the possible
interaction with the underlying structure of space and time for new
propulsion systems or energy sources. I think if we include and advertise
that we will get a better participation rate from the rest of the
conference. 

What does everyone think?

Regards, John W.

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:54 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: (h.a.de.raedt at rug.nl <mailto: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/20150616/1679cb5d/attachment.htm>