[General] Group discussion at San Diego

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Chandra,

Your comments and the apparent flexibility of the SPIE in this regard
suggest that something like this has been done before. In another
conference series (NASA), years ago we had parallel workshops (1.5 hour
discussions of groups of attendees that chose to be in one or another). The
workshop chairmen (who had organized and outlined the topics for
discussion) then put a 5-10 minute summary of the workshop before the whole
assembly and wrote up a paper based on the topic discussions and
conclusions. Something like this workshop report, submitted post
conference, could become a useful addition.

I think that you actually did something like that last conference as a
'chairman's assessment' and the session chairs are supposed to make
comments and recommendations from their sessions. If several such workshop
sessions (perhaps even in the evenings) could be offered and reported on,
the total number of published pages could become significant. If the
workshop reports were circulated for comments before submission, then they
could be considered group contributions and would have more weight than
individual papers.

I always considered these 'workshops' to be more useful and focused than
panel discussions. It might be worthwhile to ask other (non-electron)
members of the Nature of Light conference if they have topics that would
benefit from such workshops.

Andrew

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:48 PM, chandra <chandra at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:

> Dear Friends:
>
>
>
> I am delighted to see that our discussions are heading towards defining a
> fruitful platform. As Martin has done; each of us need to unambiguously
> define our position pertaining to fundamental postulates ("accepted
> beliefs"); which are at the root of our individual theories for the
> discussion, "Electron <--> Photon". This will help us down select and
> define a very clear set of discussion-points that would be possible to
> carry out within the 3-hour time we have on the Thursday morning.
>
>
>
> Of course, we will be able to advance this discussion quite a bit over
> this web-saved-emails, if all of us quickly define your positions regarding
> the fundamental postulates behind the theories that we believe in and we
> are using to advance your current models for electrons (photons). Then our
> volunteer editors  can collect and group them. Then we can collectively
> iterate a few times and then we finalize the discussion-focal points. If we
> do this soon, we will have time to even re-assess whether we have succeeded
> in down selecting the best set of discussion issues while email-based
> discussion keeps on advancing.
>
>
>
> Remember, even though ours is  "Special Conference" granted by SPIE; we
> still need to conform to its basic rules behind the publication of SPIE
> proceedings. Proceeding papers should be between 6 to 15 pages long, and
> never to exceed 20-pages. *All papers in the proceeding must have
> assigned conference numbers*. Obviously, our "discussion papers" do not
> have numbers; as we have not submitted abstracts for these papers yet.
>
>
>
> Here is a possible solution. My discussion with SPIE indicates that SPIE
> will be happy to assign paper numbers like post deadline! Papers; if we
> edit and group the output of our discussions into well-selected set of
> papers (between 6 to 20 pages) and authored by appropriate set of
> discussion participants. If all of you "sign up to this approach"; then we
> need to pro-actively organize the discussions-points and create
> *TENTATIVE* discussion groups who will author specific discussion-papers.
> "Tentative" implies that we should be able to re-organize our collective
> authorships, if necessary, as we finalize the separation of discussion
> outcomes into a well-defined set of papers.
>
>
>
> Are all of you willing to organize our discussions issues with this mode
> of publication by several sub-groups, yet to be defined?
>
>
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=
> phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark,
> Martin van der
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:38 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
>
>
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> let me start by answering your questions (not because John cannot do it,
> but he is doing a lot of answering already)
>
> First of all you are right in saying that it is not the whole story,
> something else is going on as well.
>
>
>
> But first we have to get a few things very straight.
>
> What I know as being correct knowledge, as a professional physicist, is
> what I will describe below. Correct knowledge is that knowledge that
> science has approved of to be the closest to the truth as we presently
> know. Not more, and also not any less.
>
>
>
> (Special) relativity is essentially correct, it describes experiment,
> including time dilation, twin paradox, etc.
>
> The foundation of the theory is that the speed of light is the same for
> all observers. The consequence is that clocks flying at high speed seem to
> be slow (the clock thinks the same of stationary you). Clocks will stop
> ticking in the limit where they would move at light speed. At the same time
> space is contracted, the clocks look short. No size (in the direction of
> motion) will remain when at light speed.
>
> Conclusion: something that goes at the speed of light does not see any
> time or space, it is there but contracted to nothing at all. Something that
> happens, but without space or time interval. This is what we call an event.
> It is a point in space-time.
>
>
>
> If you cannot agree with the above, you cannot agree with physics as it
> stands. It may not be the whole story, but the bit I described is the
> consistent truth to our very best knowledge. One cannot dismiss it out of
> hand, or even with a lot of experiments, because a zillion experiments have
> confirmed this already. There may be an additional subtlety that has been
> overlooked, but then one has to point out that subtlety very precisely.
>
>
>
> Now there are at least two extra things to the story you want to talk
> about, some subtleties you may call them, but before I go into those, I
> want to point out something else that we know to our very best knowledge.
> It is the single most puzzling thing, I believe, in physics today.
>
> It is the experimental result of the EPR-experiments, the quantum
> teleportation, quantum eraser, and other quantum entanglement experiments,
> see Bell inequalities and GHZ entanglement. The result of these experiments
> is the proof that space is non-local for entangled quantum states. That may
> be a part of a very limited set of states describing normal life, but it
> shows that space is not simply what normal  reason of local causality makes
> of it.
>
>
>
> Again I have so far not done any speculation, this is what the situation
> in physics is.
>
>
>
> From here it is still nothing new really, it is only just taking the full
> consequences of the above, but it is not an embedded piece of knowledge in
> the whole body of physics.
>
>
>
> So now it comes; These results can be understood completely if we look at
> them from the point of view of emission as a result of interaction by the
> absorber!!!!!! In all their weirdness, this is how it actually seems to be
> workings.
>
> Interaction of the emitter and absorber to exchange a photon is saying
> that the photon is part of an event (or that two entangled photons [emitted
> from a singlet state] are part of a single event with one emitter and two
> absorbers). The emitter and absorber(s) are one at that event.
>
> This notion unifies the idea of non-locality and emission of light, AS A
> CONSEQUENCE OF THE LIGHTSPEED BEING CONSTANT FOR ALL ABSORBERS.
>
>
>
> Now you can choose to dismiss it or not.
>
> There here are the mentioned two subtleties:
>
> 1)      light is quantized, we are talking about photons. That is not a
> required part of relativity, but it is not clear to me how it would upset
> it. Or is it perhaps..?
>
> 2)      Light does not really go at the speed of light or rather it is,
> but  I mean photons are not really going at the speed of light. The
> near-field part of the excitation or the limited distance between emission
> and absorption (it is not infinite) puts boundaries on it and pulls the
> total emission slightly off the energy-momentum shell, hence it is ever,
> ever,ever so slightly slow.... (only the radiative part is light speed and
> rigorously on-shell)
>
>
>
> Well John, or anybody else, may add what is missing! I have to go...
>
> Best regards, 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
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* woensdag 25 maart 2015 13:35
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
>
>
>
> Hi John W
>
>
>
> Still working on coming to grips with emission and absorption interactions.
>
> Lots of opinion follows...
>
>
>
> I feel that photon exchange, and virtual particle exchange, is a mechanism
> we can demonstrate and is a required part of our understanding, at least
> for many short range interactions.  However I do not feel the "single point
> in spacetime" approach provides the answer. I believe that photons are very
> simple linear, principally transverse, quantized wave structures. And that
> mater is made of wave structures as well. And as such photons are
> responsible for creating relativity.  Photons are then the fundamental upon
> which relativity is built, and are not subject to the spacetime velocity
> transformations, but rather are the cause for these transformations being
> required for mater.
>
>
>
> Imagine an asteroid or planet orbiting a star a billion light years away.
> Now envision the past light cone for an absorber on that asteroid or
> planet.  If photons zig, zagged in their paths to their destination, the
> popular concept could work for absorption and emission.  But of course they
> travel in "straight" lines in spacetime. Even if an absorber can see all of
> its past light cone at one point in space time, it still does not correctly
> explain photon exchange.  There is something else going on here, something
> is missing, and something that is not really there has been "added" to try
> to explain things. I feel we have reached for an explanation which is
> convenient, but an error, and that we do not yet have the real answer to
> this issue.
>
>
>
> Still eager to understand.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [
> mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:28 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Anthony Booth; Hans De Raedt
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
>
>
>
> Dear Chip and everyone,
>
> I am trying to start to get my act together in preparation for August, and
> just came across the keynote talk from Carver Mead from nature of light and
> particles 5. It is available here :
>
> http://natureoflight.org/
>
> It addresses the very issue of interaction with the absorber we discussed
> earlier. In my opinion it is spot on - even though the answer to the last
> question (similar to your worry Chip) was rather weak - that a lot of
> people have trouble with resonances over million year plus-time scales.
> Indeed.
>
> I think the proper way to view this is, as I said, from the point of view
> of the observer being in touch with all points on the lightcone at previous
> times, not that the emitter sees all "future" times all over the universe.
> This is a "pull" not a "push" for the direction of causality. The observer
> says "hit me!". The past is happy to oblige - zillions of hits per second
> painting the universe of your perceptions.
>
> Now I enjoyed Carver Mead's book thoroughly a few years ago when I first
> came across it (thanks Nick) and he is one person I would very much like to
> meet if I'm coming to California. That man can really think - and think
> freely.  Is he coming to this one, and, if not, can anyone introduce me? He
> would be a most excellent person to have on the group. Another excellent
> chap - and I have just finished reading some spectacularly interesting work
> of his- is Tony Booth (copied above). Tony is a real engineer (I am in an
> engineering department but I can tell the difference). Please add him to
> the general discussion group!
>
> Further to this whole developing endeavour. I am perfectly delighted to
> try and give classes on any aspect of the new theory - or to help bring
> people up to speed on some of the other relevant theories and areas in my
> areas of expertise - in quantum mechanics (relativistic or ordinary),
> experimental solid state physics, elementary particle physics (including
> QED, the standard model and various field theories), and relativity
> (special or general). Another favourite theme of mine is current problems
> and mysteries in Science as a whole. Another possibility is a question and
> answer session on "how stuff works". I'm particularly interested in
> questions I cannot answer. We should make a list!
>
> I expect lots of you to contribute and educate me in areas where I am weak
> such as optics, photonics, atomic physics to name but a very few (my
> ignorance is, almost, boundless). Martin and I are quite used to this as we
> both belong to an international study club (I was a founder member - but it
> is still going strong after a quarter of a century) which does this sort of
> thing regularly. It is BIG fun! I'm sure there will be  a lot of input from
> others in the group in developing aspects of the above theories where, I am
> sure, many of you go beyond me.
>
> I already have tens of hours of lecture material prepared and am perfectly
> happy to go on for multiple hours at a time (if people can stand it). I
> just gave four hours of lectures on-the-trot yesterday (then had lunch and
> gave another one). I am quite used to it - and it would be much more fun
> than the first year vector and complex number maths given in two of the
> lectures today. If a room can be made available either before or after the
> conference with a projector and board all would be welcome. I know Martin
> would be prepared to talk on his areas of expertise as well, and I'm sure
> others of the more senior group would be delighted to help educate the
> younger ones as well.
>
> We could, further, invite anyone from industry who was interested in new,
> linear, paradigms for developing and thinking about new kinds of materials,
> devices and systems for a further session, perhaps after the conference
> proper. This may have the added advantage of snowballing into some other
> meetings and prospects for the future.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Regards, John.
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* General [general-bounces+john.williamson=
> glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of chandra [
> chandra at phys.uconn.edu]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2015 7:02 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Cc:* Hans De Raedt
> *Subject:* [General] Group discussion at San Diego
>
> Dear Out-of-Box "Electron Modelers":
>
>
>
> We are arranging for a special 3-hour (8 to 11AM) discussion session,
> especially, for this group, on Thursday, August, 13, 2015. The title has
> been deliberately chosen as a somewhat open ended question:
>
> *"Are electrons oscillating photons or oscillations of the vacuum itself?"*
>
>
>
> If needed, the 3-huor duration would be flexible; and we can add an extra
> hour. During the main conference schedule, all of you have been given the
> standard 20-minute slots. This compensating discussion period provides all
> of you a better forum to debate and further develop your concepts.
>
>
>
> I will take the role of the Moderator. I would need a couple of volunteer
> editors from your "Electron Modeling" group. Feel free to suggest their
> names. Obviously, I am looking for "volunteers" who are very respectful to
> logically self-consistent views of others in spite of those views being
> counter to their personal views. All of you will be given the opportunity
> to present the summary of your views, as well-articulated
> issues/point-of-views to promote discussions. Duration of this first
> presentation will be short (5 minutes??).
>
>
>
> The ideas presented above are suggestions, and obviously, they are not set
> in stone; since we want to maximize the scientific outcome of this
> discussion. So, please, feel free to send me your suggestions through this
> "General Forum" to develop a better approach towards our ultimate ambitious
> goal: The correct ontological model of the electron!
>
>
>
> I am soliciting also suggestions and editorial support regarding how to
> incorporate the summary of this discussion  in the SPIE proceeding. The
> turn-around time has to be less than a month. Normally, SPIE publishes many
> of the proceedings pre-conference publication available during the
> conference. We have been holding out for post-conference. We must finalize
> everything by the end of September.
>
>
>
> Please, develop concepts and ideas on how to summarize the
> discussion/debate and also relate them to your individual papers. Remember
> that SPIE proceeding rule is 10-page limit for individual articles.
>
>
>
> Also remember, while preparing your papers and presentations that our
> dominant SPIE audience consists of engineering. Engineers think in terms
> emulating nature allowed processes in different permutations and
> combinations to create new working tools and technologies, in spite of
> their incomplete understanding of the deeper complete theory. So, try to
> add relevant experiments to illustrate the deeper ontological processes
> that may be going on in nature; even though you are speculating them with
> your mathematical models.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?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/20150325/b52fad3e/attachment-0001.htm>