[General] Group discussion at San Diego
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Thu Mar 26 06:23:12 PDT 2015
Hi Vivian
Thank you. I have downloaded your paper and am reading it. Of course I
immediately found the similarities between your electron model and mine.
Please see attached.
I completely concur that the Lorentz transformations are applied to confined
photon particles and that the structure, the EM wave structure, of these
particles is the cause for the Lorentz transformations, including length
contraction and time dilation. Simply due to the velocity limit of the
constituent waves. So, in that scenario, time, as we know it, is created,
and modified in various frames, for confined EM wave particles with
velocity, by the EM wave motions and interactions, and time is not an
inherent property of space. Time is the rate at which confined EM wave
particles can react and interact, and is created by the interaction of space
and EM waves. Time is simply a measurement of the rate of particle
interactions.
We observe photons, waves, with physical properties. They exhibit length,
frequency, spin, etc. if we correctly apply Lorentz transformations to these
linear, light speed, waves, we see redshift, or blue shift, but we still see
a wave which has length and travels at light speed. We do not see the length
of the wave shrink to zero as we would for a confined wave particle. So we
can see for this simple example that Lorentz transformations do not apply in
the same sense as for confined wave particles. The reason that time stops
for a confined EM wave particle traveling at light speed, is simply that the
waves are traveling at their maximum velocity in the direction of motion, so
they cannot travel in their particle trajectory, and they cannot interact
with any adjacent particles moving along with them. This specific scenario
however does not apply to the naturally linear moving photon.
The view that a photon is exchanged in a single point in space time has some
associated problems. Let's consider the implications of that view.
If a photon exists only at a single point in spacetime it would not be able
to have any frequency or wavelength properties. If a photon is emitted and
absorbed at the same point in spacetime, it cannot have, perhaps billions,
of cycles of its inherent frequency, in the space between emitter and
absorber, because there is no space between emitter and absorber.
Another implication of the "single point in spacetime" approach is the
predetermination of events. So let's say a photon in a distant galaxy
millions of light years away, strikes the retina of your eye on a starry
night some evening next week. The single point in spacetime approach makes
that photon, in its reference frame, predetermine events, in your reference
frame, millions of years in the future. Or it could mean that with every
action we make, we change the past for the rest of the universe. Neither of
these options appear reasonable.
Those are a few of the reasons why I think there is something amiss in the
single point in spacetime "solution" to photon exchange. I do feel there is
a reasonable answer, I just don't think we have it yet.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Vivian Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 6:22 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: John Macken
Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
Dear Chandra, Chip, Martin and All,
Chandra I am please to see you moderating this discussion, keeping people
focussed.
My point of view is that all matter is composed of rotating photons that
make two revolutions per wavelength. Some of the predictions from that
model, as related to the electron are given in my paper, reference link
below.
http://www.la-press.com/a-proposal-for-the-structure-and-properties-of-the-e
lectron-article-a2645
Chip you will see in that presentation I have suggested that it is this
rotating photon structure of matter that is responsible for the half hbar
spin of all individual sub atomic particles, for E = mc**2 and the
relativistic corrections of mass, length and time with velocity. As such the
special relativity corrections are not something that is imposed upon matter
by any nature of space-time. It is this structure that is responsible for
those special relativity corrections. I have also made some experimentally
testable predictions based upon that model and hope that, at some time in
the future some of those predictions will be tested. The simplest is the
change the electron's radius with velocity.
I also agree with Martin's comments about experiment being the arbiter of
truth. It is no good having a theory which dispenses with any properly
measured phenomena. In the space-time continuum, a photon traveling at c is
a point. In its own time frame, it is no sooner emitted than it is absorbed.
I would like to be so bold as to suggest that does not mean that the
absorber has to know that the emitter has emitted the photon and ready
itself to receive it.
A point in one frame of reference is not necessarily a point in another
frame of reference. Electronic circuit diagrams are every bit as good a
communications medium as are mathematics. Those of you familiar with them
will often see two components on a circuit diagram joined by or at a single
point. When it comes to the reality of constructing the circuit, that point
finishes up being a line or connecting wire that can extend from one end of
the circuit to the other. A point in space-time is not necessarily a point
in space. As astronomers measure, photons leaving galaxies are red shifted
when they are detected, a phenomenon that will not occur in a point.
One of my reasons for this email is to introduce John Macken to this group.
John is from California and has worked extensively with photons. I think we
all agree that an understanding of the nature of the photon is essential.
John we would like to receive your viewpoints on the photon but please, as
the implications of the topic are vast, restrict yourself to presentations
of the structure of the photon and its implications for the structure of
electrons, the main topics of this discussion group.
Cheers,
Vivian Robinson
On 26/03/2015, at 7:38 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto:general-bounces%2Bchandra>
=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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 <tel:%2B31%2040%202747548>
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflighta
ndparticles.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] 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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org <mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ] on
behalf of chandra [chandra at phys.uconn.edu <mailto: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
<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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 viv at etpsemra.com.au
<mailto:viv at etpsemra.com.au>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/viv%40etpsemra.com.au?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20150326/2b73a141/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The Electron as a Confined Photon 10.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2128269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150326/2b73a141/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the General
mailing list