[General] Group discussion at San Diego

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Dear Chip,

You are planning on adding insult to the injury that we are going to
attempt on the body of physics. [Let us hope that it is still a corpus, not
yet a corpse.]

Andrew

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John D. Chandra, and all
>
>
>
> John D sent us a link to some of Joy Christian’s work.
>
> Mr. Christian has claimed that the Bell inequality calculations used only
> commuting terms, and that rotations, as we all know, do not commute.
> Therefore that Bell’s theorem is missing the possibility of local
> variables, in the form of rotations, which could cause the set of
> inequalities obtained by Bell and by CSHS.
>
>
>
> I have just run a basic computer simulation to test that suggestion, and
> arrived at the same conclusions. The correlations to the inequalities occur
> at 2 pi and 4 pi rotations.
>
>
>
> Further work will be required to do a full simulation because it will
> require a significant investment in time to do it justice. I feel compelled
> to do a thorough investigation and run the math as many ways as possible to
> prove whether this can be accurate for all experimental circumstances.
>
>
>
> If, after adequate verification and testing, we still obtain the same
> results, the implications would have a fairly large impact on rethinking
> the concept of the “spooky action at a distance”.  It is a bit early to
> tell, but it may provide a much clearer path to deterministic causality.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Duffield
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 3:33 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Group discussion at San Diego
>
>
>
> 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 10
> 39 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.
>
>
>
> [image: EinsteinSpeedofLight]
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Vivian Robinson <viv at etpsemra.com.au>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 27, 2015 7:18 AM
>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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
> <general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> ] *On Behalf Of*chandra
> *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
> <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? <http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2007-November/001833.html>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 <chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2015 1:23 PM
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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
> <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 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 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150327/34df8ccf/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 68087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150327/34df8ccf/attachment-0001.jpg>