[General] Positions

[Chip Akins]

Hi Andrew

 

I will try to summarize concisely my current position on the major topics.

 

Beliefs:

 

1.      I feel that matter is made up of small confined circulating EM
waves.

2.      I believe there are no charges, only topological manifestations of
charge, produced by confined fields (EM waves).

3.      I feel the relativity is simply due to the transverse wave/field
makeup of matter.

4.      I think that photons (waves/ traveling fields) are the cause for
relativity and our perception of time.

5.      I believe that relativistic corrections apply to matter and confined
waves, but do not apply to photons or light speed waves.

6.      I feel that this approach indicates that there is a reference rest
frame in space, but that we cannot detect it due to relativity.

7.      I believe that the coulomb field (the velocity of charge) is a
longitudinal wave traveling faster than the speed of light.

8.      I feel that wave interference in the electron is the mechanism which
causes the exact magnetic moment and the exact value of the elementary
charge, as well as one mechanism which engenders the fine structure
constant.

9.      I feel the de Broglie's harmony of phases is a natural artifact of a
moving confined EM wave constituting a particle.

10.  I believe the wavefront velocity inside spin 1 photons is the square
root of two times c, and that the wavefront velocity inside electrons is the
same velocity.

11.  I believe we need to extend Maxwell's equations to include twist, spin
force for microscopic domains. 

12.  I feel that all forces, the strong nuclear force, the weak force,
electric charge, magnetism, and gravity, originate from the corrected and
updated version of Maxwell's equations.

13.  Of course I believe, E=mc2, E=hv, c, h, etc. 

14.  I believe that three dimensional space and the time it creates are
fundamental, and the experiment can disclose to us the nature of the
universe.

15.  I believe in causality, and in a more deterministic nature of the
universe.

16.  I believe we need to question and rethink the "foundations" of physics
or we will not be able to build a correct foundation for a more correct
theory.

 

What I do not currently believe:

 

1.      I do not believe that the "single point in spacetime" approach to
photon exchange is valid.

2.      I do not believe that time, as we know it, is an inherent property
of spacetime, but rather time is created by the speed of light, and particle
(photon, field) interaction.

3.      I do not believe the speed of light is invariant, but that our
perception of the speed of light is fixed due to relativistic
transformations.

4.      I do not believe that our current understanding of quantum physics
is the fundamental truth.

5.      Nor do I believe that our current interpretation of relativity is
the fundamental truth.

6.      I do not believe that the current interpretation of experiment is
necessarily valid in all respects. I think there are factors we are missing
or not considering.

 

Chip

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Andrew Meulenberg
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:36 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Post Deadline! papers

 

Dear Friends,

It looks as if Chandra has found an option within the SPIE framework that
will allow us to proceed in a semi-organized manner. Let us take advantage
of that. We also need to take advantage of our volunteers and help them as
much as possible.

Mary (Dr. Mary Fletcher and wife of Bob Hudgins) and Rachel (my wife, a very
quick learner) have volunteered to try and put together, in some form, a
presentation poster of the many people and positions of this 'group'. They
will not be able to read all of the email exchanges and extract the
necessary (and filter out the unnecessary) comments of the group. They will
need pointed inputs. I have volunteered to help them get started. To be
successful, this effort will required each member of the group to contribute
their own position (even if they are not planning on attending the
conference itself).

This group is a bunch of volunteers already. However, we are all, by our
natures, independent and 'mavericks' (and maybe over- committed). Trying to
organize an effort involving something that all of us hold dear will not be
easy. We can start with a few steps. You can:

1.	Identify if you will be able to attend the conference or not. We can
post (& update) a probable list of attendees and titles of any papers
submitted (accepted) on the website. Submit to subject: 'attendance'
2.	submit an individual position statement into the subject thread to
be labeled 'positions'. It can be updated as new topics are discussed &
integrated.
3.	identify topics for 'workshops' that you would be interested in
attending. Submit to subject: 'topics'
4.	Volunteer to chair specific (or any of the) small workshops and to
present (on the last morning) & to write up (within 2 weeks of the meeting)
the meeting action/results/conclusions/etc. Submit to subject: 'volunteers'

Thank you,

Andrew

___________________________

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:18 AM, chandra < <mailto:chandra at phys.uconn.edu>
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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150328/00fc6053/attachment-0001.htm>