[General] Positions

[John Williamson]

Hello everyone,

Here is a general statement on my current "position". The first part is brief. The second includes the first but expands on some of the points (in blue)

Position:

Experiment is primary.

Most of current calculable theory is fundamentally correct: as far as it goes.

All particles, leptons, photons and hadrons have the same, underlying nature.

Current theories do not go far enough in describing that underlying nature.

A new theory is required describing both light and matter. On the same footing. It should encompass, or underpin, most of the current canon of physics.

Such a theory should be mathematically precise. It should be well-defined and self-consistent. It should be finite, calculable and testable. It should describe all of nature just – and no more. It should be (at least part of) the solution of Hilbert’s sixth problem.

It should explain the nature of particles as light and light as (part of) particles.  It should lay bare the nature of charge, quantum spin and the families of particles observed in experiment. If not based on space and time themselves then it should derive their nature.

I should say that my new theory IS based on (just 4-D) space and time themselves – and so may not be complete if these are not fundamental (which they may be). For me, at the moment, the best route to understanding the above and especially to understanding the reason that “light” may be confined as a double-looped photon-like object, is to extend Maxwell’s equations to achieve this.

Extended ...


Position:

Experiment is primary.

Having said this, understanding the true meaning and significance of experiment is (pretty much) beyond all of us. It is very very hard. How do I know this? I see what meaning others ascribe to my own experiments – usually ill informed –often just plain wrong.  I include myself in this: I thought for a few months that structure in electron focusing was from quantum interference of alternate trajectories. Not so – it was a rough(ish) edge to the device. I wanted to publish a retraction later, but the lead-author (and another chap who had done the quantum-interference calculations) did not want to. This is one of my most cited papers – with hundreds of citations. Cited by folk in support of their own mis-understanding (perhaps) of the underlying source of the structure observed.  Each, then, a group of people wasting their time corroborating falsehood. Not good.

We (you – yes you!) all do this sort of thing – Chip states in his paper that Martin and my model we consider a ribbon of charge – not so.  Richard and John D see our earlier model as light flying round a little donut in space- not so. It is not that you guys are wrong (you may have got it just right!). It is just that it is absolutely not what we were saying. See, I’m doing it now – I’m telling you guys what you think about what we thought. Probably all wrong again!

Most of current calculable theory is fundamentally correct: as far as it goes.

These include: Maxwell, Quantum mechanics, Quantum electrodynamics,  special relativity, general relativity. Any new theory must encompass these, or at least agree in the limits where they describe experiment well. Preferably, any new theory should derive the starting points of all of the above.

All particles, leptons, photons and hadrons have the same, underlying nature.

The above-mentioned theories do not go far enough in describing that underlying nature.

I think it is not ever going to be sufficient to sweep our lack of understanding of one kind of particle (the electron) into that of another (the photon). We need to go further and properly understand both.


A new theory is required describing both light and matter. On the same footing.
It should encompass, or underpin, most of the current canon of physics.

Such a theory should be mathematically precise. It should be well-defined and self-consistent. It should be finite, calculable and testable. It should describe all of nature just – and no more. It should be (at least part of) the solution of Hilbert’s sixth problem.

It should explain the nature of particles as light and light as (part of) particles. It should lay bare the nature of charge, quantum spin and the families of particles observed in experiment. If not based on space and time themselves then it should derive their nature.

I should say that my new theory IS based on (just 4-D) space and time themselves – and so may not be complete if these are not fundamental (which they may be). For me, at the moment, the best route to understanding the above and especially to understanding the reason that “light” may be confined as a double-looped photon-like object, is to extend Maxwell’s equations to achieve this.

Though that is my view at present, just what that theory may be (at least in detail) remains open – and is part of the theme of this session. Good luck to us!


Regards, John.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:53 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: [General] Positions

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 <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 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/20150330/f1ace3f1/attachment-0001.htm>