[General] Group discussion at San Diego

[John Duffield]

Martin:

Please don’t be disappointed. If you had 100 ideas, and every last one was crazy, nobody in physics would pay you any attention. But if you had 99 brilliant ideas, there are people and vested interests who would feel threatened. They will censor you, and they will prevent you putting a paper on arXiv, as per John’s recent experience. And they will use your 100th idea, the one which is arguably crazy, to attack you mercilessly and persuade others not to listen to anything you say. Do not underestimate this. Do not persuade yourself that it took you six years to get a paper into low-impact journal because of some innocent ignorance.  Do not kid yourself that it has received no media attention by mere chance. Ergo I feel the need to protect your from your own exuberance here. Sorry.   

As for Wheeler, I think the guy put physics back by fifty years. He talked about a geon. If he’d used the right prefix, one associated with forces 1039 times stronger than gravity, you would never have written Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? And if he’d paid attention to general relativity instead of rewriting it and passing off ersatz trash as the real thing, Viv would know that the speed of light varies in the room he’s in. And so would everybody else.  



Regards
John 

From: Vivian Robinson 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 7:18 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion 
Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego

Dear Martin, John D and All, 

As strange as it may seem, sometimes two apparently opposing viewpoints can both be correct. As has been mentioned before, experiment is the only arbiter of truth, provided the experiment is performed and reported correctly. But there are several aspects to any experiment: the result obtained, the interpretation of that result and the extrapolation of the interpretation to other observations. 

The "pillars" of modern physics include the special and general theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, the fixed values of physical constants such as c, h and e and the standard models for the structure of matter and the formation of the universe from a Big Bang. Many of us in this discussion group have serious reservation about the electron being a point particle and are trying to see if we can replace it by "toroidal electromagnetic oscillations", or however this model is to be called. This is a direct challenge to the "standard model" for the structure of matter, one of those "pillars" of modern physics. 

The "establishment" to whom John W has referred as being responsible for suppressing these types of publications, will interpret a challenge to one of those pillars as being a challenge to all of them. I am the first to admit that I do not challenge all those "pillars". I do accept:-

1 The fixed values of physical constants such as c, h and e - they have been measured and found to be fixed.
2 The special theory of relativity - it has also been verified experimentally. Also, my electron paper suggests that it is this structure that gives electrons, and all matter with this structure, the relativistic corrections with velocity. 
3 That aspect of the general theory of relativity that mass distorts space-time, giving rise to gravity - it has been verified experimentally. I do not agree with concepts such as black holes that are "predicted" from Einstein's gravitational field equations. (If anyone is interested let me know and I will send a reference to a paper in which another space-time metric has been derived for space outside matter. It is very similar to the accepted Schwarzschild metric, except that it has its singularity at the centre of mass, not at the Schwarzschild radius. All measurements that support the Schwarzschild metric are supported by this metric. In this case, it shows that the extrapolation of Einstein's field equations from r >> alpha = 2GM/c**2, where it is shown to hold, to r ≈ alpha, which predicts the "event horizon" is not necessarily valid. There are other explanations for the so-called "black holes" that have been "detected".)

4 I accept the quantum of Planck's constant h - it and many of its predictions have been experimentally verified. I also accept quantum electrodynamics. It is difficult to understand and even more difficult to apply in calculations, but it also gets answers that match experiment. But I do not accept quantum mechanics in its entirety. The electron is a particle. Quantum mechanics uses wave equations calculated by Schrödinger, Dirac and others to explain its observed properties. With the appropriate manipulation a wave can be made to fit almost any situation. Most of the "predictions" of quantum mechanics are fitted to the measured results after they are obtained. 

There is nothing in the origins of the de Broglie wavelength that suggests it can influence anything other than a diffraction or scattering pattern in a wave like manner. Quantum mechanics doesn't know what causes the spin of an electron. This rotating "toroidal electromagnetic oscillation" model does give a clear indication of spin as  angular momentum, as first proposed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit. Other properties like the quantised spin (only + half hbar and - half hbar) as the only values, are a direct consequence of this model. As I mentioned to John W some time ago, it is easy to show that, in the Bohr planetary model of atoms, electron "orbits" being quantised according to their de Broglie wavelength and the reason an electron does not collapse into the nucleus, are both natural consequence of the structure of the electron and nucleus. Like quantised spins, they don't need a quantum postulate to explain them.

This brings me to the reason for this message. An experimentally observed effect is reality if the experiment is adequately performed and reported. But care must be exercised in interpreting the observed results in terms of theories. Quantum mechanics doesn't know what causes the spin of a particle, but that doesn't stop its proponents from using spin in calculations. Equally there have been suggestions that some "quantum" effects such as entanglement are caused by some factor(s) that is (are) not known at this stage. Is it fair for quantum mechanics practitioners to use spin of unknown origin and say that others can't use an unknown effect to explain say entanglement? If that is what Bell's theorem predicts, explanation must be sought outside quantum mechanics. (Upon reflection, the mere fact that we are attempting to produce a model of an electron takes us outside quantum mechanics. In QM, the uncertainty principle prevents anyone from knowing anything more accurately than hbar.)

Every theory should be able to be questioned at all times until it explains all experimental results. While that is happening, the more information that is available to more people, the more likely it is that the correct interpretation of reality (whatever it is) will finally be achieved by people with vision such as those in this group. 

I hope all will regard this as a suggestion that the more useful contributions received the better. Experiment must always remain the only reality. That different approaches or theories give different explanations for the same observation should not be cause for concern. Until reality (whatever it is) is finally fully understood, consideration should be given to all interpretations of valid experimental results that can explain some aspects of observation, particularly to those that can predict unknown properties that can be tested experimentally.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson.


On 27/03/2015, at 8:38 AM, "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:


  Hi Martin

  We need your expertize, thoughts, and input.

  Don’t be disappointed because we still have questions which challenge certain items. That is simply the history of science.

  My hope is that, regardless of the direction the evidence takes us, we will collectively and individually, come to a clearer understanding of the remaining puzzles.

  Warmest Regards
  Chip

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
  Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:42 AM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
  Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
   
  Dear all,
  I am deeply disappointed.
  My careful explanation to those who are interested in the subject of non-locality has not worked.
  You, John D Chandra and Chip in particular should realize that I am not talking about my own pet theories (like many in this group), but really try to explain where science stands. I was advocating Feynman, Wheeler, Tetrode, and all those experimentalists that work on entanglement.
  I have little hope now anything good will come from this group.
  Goodbye.
  Martion


  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] On Behalf Ofchandra
  Sent: donderdag 26 maart 2015 17:34
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
  Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
   
  Dear Friends:
  As an individual scientist like one of you, I concur with John D. and his followers. At this moment, I am abandoning my role as a moderator! [I will take the moderator role during our discussion at San Diego in August!]
       However, purely from the stand point of preserving the philosophical breadth in our discussion, I would restrain myself from the strong view of dropping the thread (emission as a result of interaction by the absorber”) completely and immediately; unless, of course, all of you agree to. Because, it may give rise to, or evolve into, something productive; or it may become a dead-end also; like say, the string theory! I do not know. I trust in the nature’s drive towards promoting diversity of thinking among humans. DIVERSITY IN EVERY SPHERE OF LIFE IS AT THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTIONARY SUSTAINABILITY. So, we need to accommodate diversity of thinking among humans, as long as everybody is intellectually honest and remains, deep in her/his mind and connects to evolution congruency in some form or other.
       Now, scientifically speaking, let us visualize the physical processes in a gas laser behind the spontaneous emission and stimulated emission under the constraints of the unique vectorial velocity matching necessary for lasing to happen, given the spectral Doppler broadening (Maxwellian velocity distribution of the gas atoms). The length of the laser tube  imposes physical and temporal separation between the spontaneous and stimulated emitting atoms. Successful modeling approach to temporal evolution of mode locked laser pulses clearly points to the complete independence between the spontaneous and the stimulating atoms; they are not entangled!. This is, of course, very true for spontaneous photons that started its journey from a star, say, 10 billion light years past, and reaching my detector today on earth. That photon, obviously could not have coordinated its emission characteristics, including its Cosmological Redshift, well before the invention of detection technology, or even the birth of the Sun! That is not a causal physics model. If we start with a non-causal, but mathematically self-consistent theory to model measurable data; we should not keep on claiming that my theory is correct simply because it fits the measured data. A theory determines what and how we measure some parameter. Something like this was said by none other than Alberto (our Einstein)! This is a clear example that we cannot anchor ourselves to the correctness of a theory simply because it is corroborated by a “working” theory.
       I am attaching one of my recent paper that further elaborates this issue.

  Sincerely,
  Chandra.
  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
  Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:27 AM
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
  Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
   
  John/Martin:
   
  I concur with Chip. I would urge you to bury this “emission as a result of interaction by the absorber”. Emission and absorption might be separated by 13.8 billion years, or 46 billion light years. No way do they constitute the same spacetime event. Claiming that they do is the sort of thing that could attract a crackpot label. Malicious people might use it to discredit you along with everything else you say and do. And of course, this group. Better to stick with hard scientific evidence of pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas etc, and the self-confined-photon electron.
   
  I have little patience for spooky action at a distance. What is it really? It isn’t some ansible. Or any kind of time machine. You can’t even use it for instant messaging. I think it’s a parlour trick, smoke and mirrors, quantum mysticism, or even a deliberate fraud. Please have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401 where Travis Norsen says this:
   
  “Many textbooks and commentators report that Bell's theorem refutes the possibility (suggested especially by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with additional ("hidden") variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. On this view, Bell's theorem supports the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation. Bell's own view of his theorem, however, was quite different”.
   
  Also see work by Joy Christian: Quantum entanglement: is spookiness under threat?and http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1. All the mysticism is swept away by rotations do not commute. 
   
  Regards
  John D
   
   
  From: Chip Akins
  Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:23 PM
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
  Subject: Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
   
  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-electron-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> 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 createTENTATIVE 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]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.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 johnduffield at btconnect.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/johnduffield%40btconnect.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/20150327/b6d635b4/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150327/b6d635b4/attachment-0001.jpeg>