[General] Group discussion at San Diego

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thx Richard. That is a good start. If we have a list of items that are
'agreed' on, then we can work together on the others.

Andrew

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150326/8bf4eac9/attachment-0001.htm>