[General] Group discussion at San Diego

Wed Mar 25 13:38:24 PDT 2015

Hello Chandra,
   That sounds like a good approach. I will prepare a set of discussion
points for my approach to the electron/photon and pass it to you and the
others for consideration.
     Richard

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, 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 richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/e27070ac/attachment-0001.htm>