[General] Conference, spring/summer 2016

[Adam K]

John W,

It would be great to have the resources of a university in Europe rather
than your or Martin's home for a recurring conference. Nothing against your
homes (!) but it would be nice to have imprimatur, space, and FUNDS.

May I suggest that the way to pitch something like this might be to strike
less of an epoch-making tone, and more of a perfectly placid tone which
does two things: 1) arises from an analysis of *methods* and *culture* in
physics, something like what Chandra mentioned above and has been talking
about for awhile, and the stagnation and problems thereof, 2) suggests
that the conference series could provide a focal point for a minority
community which already exists and which has the potential to remedy the
problem mentioned in 1.

In order to avoid appearing to ask for money in order to bring peace to the
world and destroy all falsehood, your overall tactic could be to* focus on
the pilot wave approach, **and others. *So, you make a calm note of the
situation depicted in 1) and suggest to the administrators and other
scientists that the community of physics and science-at-large would benefit
from a conference series *on the pilot wave approach, **and others.* You
are on much firmer ground then, because you come across as being almost
like a bureaucrat, only smarter. Bureaucrats will respect you then and will
think seriously about giving you money. Other scientists will see the
analysis and, whether or not they agree, will have no grounds to make digs
at you personally.

So, e.g. for 1) you could mention the fact that people in Quantum Gravity
have been jumping ship for some time, how 't Hooft himself has started
looking for alternatives, how String Theory is all tied in knots (Smolin et
al), add Chandra's larger-scale observations about lack of fundamental
progress for decades, your own experience with QCD, and so on.

Then, for 2) you could mention Coudet's experiments, the work of Valentini
et al., Basil Hiley and the pilot wave model in general, and some other
people I can hook you up with (I am sure others on this list will know
people too).

It would be a good idea to actually get a team of people on board with this
BEFORE you put together a proposal and talk to the people with the power.
For example, Chandra has already said yes. You could get a list of people
like me who you spin as the 'next generation', as well as some name
recognition like Basil Hiley, Peter Holland (if you can find him), this guy
at Cambridge http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html and so
forth.

You get a list of people who are interested "in principle". It costs people
nothing to say yes in this way because they are committing to nothing, but
it advances your cause because you can go to administrators and say: *all
these people want to take part*.

It strikes me that this email list is actually an excellent place to
collaborate on the project of getting funding in this way. It is a concrete
problem which would take more man hours than John W has now. If we cut it
into about 10 different pieces each one won't be too onerous.

Adam


On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <
chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu> wrote:

> Hello Friends: This great idea was thrown around at San Diego this year. I
> am glad that the idea is now beginning to take shape. It should be
> organized with some European funding; especially to support PostDocs and
> graduate students.
>
>
>
> Bringing serious change in the centuries old Messiah-Complex driven
> physics-thinking cannot be changed to Evolution-Process anchored thinking
> within one generation. We need long-term cultural changes spear-headed by
> our younger generation.
>
>
>
> Just a note for your consideration in choosing the dates for this European
> out-of-box physics meeting: I am already committed for a lecture tour in
> India for the duration of February 20 through March 8. I will very much
> appreciate if you gentlemen choose the dates right after March 8 (then I
> couple my trip as a stop-over); or a couple of weeks after (then, I take
> rest and fly over the “pond” again).
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra Roychoudhuri
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=
> uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Williamson
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey; 'Anthony Booth'; 'Ariane Mandray'
> *Subject:* [General] Conference, spring/summer 2016
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I am thinking of calling a conference in late spring or summer of next
> year to alternate with the SPIE conference in odd years.
>
> One possible venue is somewhere in Scotland (see copy of email I have sent
> to the head of Science and engineering at Glasgow below).
>
> Alternatively anywhere else in Europe would be fine - for other members of
> the group who may like to host it. Martin and I have held workshops at
> various venues before. Our modus operandi has that we put a few folk up
> with ourselves or with friends- the rest fend for themselves.
>
> In the first instance all we really need is a big enough room, nearby
> places to eat, and local accomodation.
>
> A couple of thousand (Pounds, Dollars or Euros), would be enough for me to
> host this in my home town of Troon, on the west coast of Scotland. There
> are plenty of facilities here, provided we do not clash with the open golf
> (held here once every four years or so). With  a bit more we could begin to
> sponsor some of the younger members who could not afford to come to SPIE.
> There are even good campsites locally, for those who want to travel really
> cheaply.
>
> I would like to know who might be interested, and also if anyone knows of
> any sources of funding we may be able to look to. We can do a sort of
> proceedings - and just post it to research gate, Vikra and/or Academia.edu.
> In another forum (Fanaten) we have produced a confernce book ... and this
> may also be possible.
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> Regards, John (W).
>
> Text of today's email to Muffy Cladr (Head of Science and engineering at
> Glasgow) follows .......
>
> Dear Muffy,
>
>
>
> I enjoyed your talk last Monday, it was a breath of fresh air. I think I
> can throw some light on some of the points you raised on the NSS and on
> citations. I’m afraid I had to leave soon after your talk – so missed the
> discussion.  You asked for feedback – and also on ideas to take Glasgow
> forwards. That is what this note is about.
>
>
>
> I want to give feedback on citations, on the NSS scores and how they might
> be improved and on a means to move Glasgow’s position up the rankings with
> respect to other Russel group Universities. I will cover the citations
> here, but will leave the NSS stuff to another note which was originally
> intended to be just for those teaching Mathematics in engineering, but
> which covers the points on the NSS and which I will circulate in
> engineering. The new action is the possibility of organising a possible set
> of conferences somewhere in Scotland on a new cross-disciplinary topic
> across physics, mathematics, computer science, chemistry and engineering,
> to be held in “even” years and to match up with a biennial conference in
> the California in “odd” years.
>
>
>
> The first such would be held in 2016 and even years thereafter. It could
> become very very big indeed and may, in the longer term, represent an
> unprecedented opportunity to help take the university to nearer to the top
> of the Russell group.
>
>
>
> Now you probably do not know even who I am, since you have not been active
> in any of the fields where I am well-known, so I will first fill you in on
> some relevant aspects.
>
>
>
> Firstly- on the citations mystery. I think that may be, at least partly,
> down to me. I am the highest cited researcher (I think) in engineering in
> Glasgow. Also my citations, being mostly in physics journals, also count
> towards those for physics. This citation count is on a relatively small
> number of publications (about a hundred) but most with a very high impact,
> most published in the top journals, and covering three widely-separated
> fields. Most of the citations have no other Glasgow co-authors – so cannot
> count for others. The average impact (per paper – on citations (about 100
> per paper) is far higher than that that for any of these journals (max
> about 4 per paper) – and my contribution is therefore part of the reason
> why the journals I submit to are “high impact” in the first place.  I could
> well be wrong on this, but will copy it to research and teaching staff and
> folk will correct me if I am wrong.
>
>
>
> For comparison, the excellent (but no longer with us) Richard de la Rue
> used to beat me on the h-index count– but not on the number of citations.
> He is (rightly!) co-author on hundreds of Glasgow papers, but most of these
> have had little or no impact (as measured by citations). I have not
> checked, but I am pretty sure I have the top two (and quite possibly more)
> cited papers for the whole of Glasgow engineering.  Further, Richard having
> left us will have had little effect on the Glasgow citation count, as many
> Glasgow co-authors remain. The effect of his excellence is now “frozen in”,
> at least for the time being.
>
>
>
> To numbers: Google scholar lists me with more than 10000 citations and an
> h-index of 42. Most of the citations are to papers in the top peer reviewed
> journals in whichever field. Though some of these papers are now rather
> old, they were both wide-ranging and seminal so there remains very high
> citation rate to them per year.
>
>
>
> While citations in peer-reviewed high quality journals do not count
> strongly in the  recent ref , they may do so again in future. They DO count
> strongly for many of the “international rankings” (40 percent in some
> cases, I believe). I have not bothered to work out how high the impact on
> Glasgow would be if I left – but am pretty sure that would, by itself, drop
> Glasgow right out of the “top 100 universities” in most international
> counts for engineering. Because of the numbers it would also have some
> significant impact on the rankings “all of science” for Glasgow as well.
>
>
>
> The reason that my citations are so high has been because of work at the
> absolute top international level in three distinct fields.  Work in
> particle physics (at CERN) pushed experiments which turned out to be
> seminal in two different areas. This led (and still leads) to a very large
> number of citations.  There followed a move to more practical science, to
> micro-electronics in industry. Here I was lucky enough to be given much
> freedom (and a very large budget ) to develop the experimental, device and
> material science needed to make a real impact and move the world forwards.
> I imagined, designed and developed the first electronic device to be called
> “nano” (not by me but by others), the “quantum point contact”. Again this
> was seminal work, again leading to lots of citations.
>
>
>
> Two years after my design of two devices in particular the “quantum point
> contact” and the “quantum dot” (yes that was me – I invented the worlds
> first (semiconductor) quantum dot), most of the contributions at the major
> international conferences were derivative of the work on the experiments
> and devices I had designed. They still are – hence the continuing high
> citation rate.
>
>
>
> This early work was why, in the late eighties, a certain Steve Beaumont
> got in touch asking to be included in the international collaboration I was
> putting together at the time. I said ok. I then wrote a (series of) grants
> (Steve put in quite a useful contribution there too).  One was called
> Quantecs, worth a good few millions at the time. I’m sure it is likely that
> “Quantics”, our present big grant, was not named after it – but there is
> always that chance! This early work had a large impact in the standing of
> Glasgow in the world and continues to do so.
>
>
>
> I am afraid I have been a bit of a  disappointment to many here at
> Glasgow, as that field was dropped to work on something completely
> different. This was partly because it was exactly what I wanted to do,
> partly because I felt it was far more important to the progress of world
> science but also because Glasgow could not then get its act together (and
> still cannot) to measure the basic properties of what were (and still are
> in some respects) world-leading devices. I have a few dozen of in my desk
> drawer that I designed, developed experimental equipment to measure, and
> published papers on in the eighties and nineties. In Glasgow, we did not
> (and still does not!) have the capability to measure them in the
> (fractional) quantum Hall regime for which they were designed. If I am
> wrong, please let me know and you can measure them if you want to!
>
>
>
> Instead, I have been working for the last decades on a very high risk,
> potentially very high impact piece of theoretical work (see below),
> covering the basis of most of science. It was to have the freedom to do
> this, in work-time as my research, that I took a factor of two pay cut at
> the time, refused offered salaries in the early nineties of 120 grand (four
> times my then Glasgow salary), and moved from industry into academia. The
> new work required the understanding of wide areas of science, from
> (classical and quantum) field theory to nanotechnology, from the Standard
> Model to pre-Einstein relativity and from computer science to the
> mathematics of reality. It may have been expected that other areas, such as
> string theory, may have been important too – but these proved
> dissappointing. It has taken some time, but work on the new theoretical
> basis is now yielding fruit. The work had, up until last year, yielded few
> publications, so does not figure in the last ref. Neither have I been
> writing grants. The salaries on offer on a grant simply do not attract the
> caliber of people required, so are a complete waste of time. The
> collaboration has been with many other high-level workers worldwide,
> including academics, industrialists and the independently wealthy.
>
>
>
>
>
> So what is this other research – and why might it be that thing that could
> put Glasgow and Scotland back to the cutting edge of progress in world
> science?
>
>
>
> The new thread was one tried by Einstein for 3 decades or so and also by
> Dirac, de Broglie, and so on. They were looking for an underlying theory of
> how “elementary” particles worked. What they were made of. What was the
> origin of matter, time and space. What is an “elementary” particle such as
> the electron? What is charge, quantum mechanical spin, the reason for the
> quantum and relativistic nature of space and time? That sort of thing. I
> have been doing this because I think I can make a contribution. I have been
> a “world changer” already in two different fields, as my record proves.
> Compared to those contributions, of international import though they were,
> the present work is at a different kind of level to that which is usually
> referred to as having “impact”.  This is indeed “world changing”.
>
>
>
> What is it? It is an underling theory of space-time, matter and light. It
> is a new theory based on a new linear equation. The Dirac equation (the
> basis of relativistic quantum mechanics), as it should have been. Starting
> with just space and time the theory claims to describe BOTH light and
> matter. Exactly. Just and no more.  If true (and this is the big if), the
> new theory  is to present science as atoms were to Chemistry, relativity
> and quantum mechanics were to physics, Wittgenstein was to western
> Philosophy, and Pask was to cybernetics. An understanding of how things
> really work at the sub “elementary” particle level. A complete new
> framework for thinking. A framework where one can imagine and design new
> devices, new materials, and new systems. Sub-electron electronics.
> Sub-quantum chemistry. The underlying mechanics, subject to computer
> simulation, of the fundamental underlying processes of space, time and
> mass-energy.
>
>
>
> Needless to say this is, potentially, very very big indeed. Dirac big,
> Maxwell big, Maybe even Einstein or Leonardo big. Either very very big, or
> just plain wrong. Unlike some controversial areas there is little risk
> though. It is, after all, only a theory!
>
>
>
> Controversial or not: so far so good. The new theory has been “out” since
> last August. Since then, some top physicists have been trying very very
> hard to put a dent in it – but no-one yet has managed. One of the reviewers
> of one of my recent papers said explicitly that it reminded him of
> Einstein’s seminal work. It is, at the very least, an alternative to
> alternatives such as the various string theories.
>
>
>
> Further, though controversial for the time being, it is only a theory.
> Most theories prove wrong.  Good grief, all of the current theories of
> science have areas where they do not describe all of experiment correctly.
> This one does not, as far as I know. You mentioned in your talk that others
> had called your work “good”. That goes for me too – up till now. Further,
> the new all-Scots Williamson-Maxwell theory seems sound.  At least it is so
> far, so good.
>
>
>
> I have always had a small (but very international) fan-club on the
> theoretical basis of earlier ideas. There was much theoretical progress on
> many theoretical fronts over a couple of decades, mostly on complex, hard
> to solve, non-linear models.
>
>
>
> Since I invented the new, linear, relativistic theory last year, affairs
> have been moving rapidly. There were invitations to speak at three
> international conferences this summer. I used to think it strange at one
> time if not invited as a keynote speaker at least one international
> conference per year, and had to turn down many invitations in the eighties
> and nineties. My last invited, plenary, keynote talk at an international
> conference (on computing!) had been in 2012. Things are hotting up again
> now: I was invited to speak at three this year – in Moscow (theoretical
> physics), Berlin (general physics) and San Diego (Engineering).  I had to
> turn two of the invitations down, for financial reasons.
>
>
>
>
>
> Though there are, presently, no other Glasgow co-authors, the new theory
> is by no means all my own work. It is not a “one-man-band”. There are a
> whole lot of (also very good) international collaborators.  My contribution
> to the work is (at least!) matched by my good friend and co-worker of three
> decades, Martin van der Mark (in Holland). There are contributions from
> many others – Stephen Leary, Tim Drysdale Richard de la Rue and John Weaver
> here at Glasgow. Phil Butler in New Zealand. Niels Gresnigt in China. Half
> a dozen folk down in England (mostly academics).  Dozens of folk in America
> (mostly California, for some reason) People in France, Germany, Sweden  …
> people on every continent except Antartica. These are good people, but the
> contribution is usually limited to that appropriate to an acknowledgement.
> It is Martin, Stephen (who has now left Glasgow) and I who are the only
> authors on the papers.
>
>
>
> Anyway … back to the conference I am thinking about helping to organise. I
> have organized conferences and workshops before, both in nanotechnology and
> in quantum field theory. I have organized a series of workshops in the past
> in various places round Europe. One of our group owns a Farmhouse in
> Sancerre, overlooking the river and with a room big enough to take 40 or
> so. Martin has a big room at the top of his house which will take 30. We
> have had workshops in both venues. We have, so far simply declared where
> and when they will be, invited folk, limited the numbers to our capacity,
> arranged a projector and screen and they have paid their own way. Though
> this model is still possible, the numbers interested are now getting too
> big for this for this and we need to have access to larger facilities.
>
>
>
> Two years ago, after students kept badgering me to explain topics they
> found hard – quantum mechanics, relativity, quantum electrodynamics – just
> standard stuff from science but at a high level. I would help but the
> number of people trying to crowd round a table whenever I explained
> anything got a bit too big so I said I would get a room. I took the big
> lecture theatre in the Rankine and said I would give a series of lectures
> covering “all of science”. One lecture at a time – at 8am on a Friday
> morning.  First lecture – 30 folk, second one – about a hundred – with
> videos and cameras. Third one – folk standing at the back. Moved to a
> (much) bigger lecture theatre. Next one: there were three hundred or so
> folk – many having traveled from places such as Edinburgh or Dundee that
> morning, standing outside in the dark and the rain at 8am on a dark Scots
> winter morning. There is a huge appetite for understanding how things work!
>
>
>
> Many colleagues that I know of from maths, physics, chemistry and
> engineering attended as well. The feedback indicates that many of them
> enjoyed these talks and learned something themselves. I had hoped to extend
> the series further this year – but have not been able to do so due to
> commitments in other work-areas.
>
>
>
> I have no idea how many folk will want to come if I announce a workshop/
> conference. This depends, of course, as to whether it is restricted to
> invitation only or is open.  It could be a hundred or three hundred,
> depending on the marketing.
>
>
>
> The eventual scope may be similar to that of a workshop I was invited to
> in Autumn of last year, at Imperial. Access to a big lecture theatre,
> plenty of good restaurants in the vicinity, invitation only, further sort
> it out yourselves. Despite the lack of formal structure, there were many
> big names there in several fields. These included Roger Penrose (Oxford,
> physics), Tim Palmer (Oxford, climate change), and Basil Hiley (Birkbeck,
> fundamentals of quantum mechanics).  There were folk contributing from the
> U.S. by video-link. There were a hundred plus folk there. I had lunch on
> the first day with Roger, Basil and Tim. The discussion was on quantum
> mechanical wave-function collapse (mostly me Basil and Roger).  Spent
> subsequent hours with those two on the following evening and morning. These
> are the kind of folk I hope to invite. The conference will be on the nature
> of light, material particles and "quantum collapse".
>
>
>
> I am far too busy to organize much. The main thrust of present research is
> to develop publicise and publish papers in the area of the new theory, not
> mess about with administration.  I have no funding and no time or
> inclination to spend much time looking for funding (my teaching load has
> been increased fourfold in the last few years – to the point where I am now
> responsible for about a tenth of all the FTE undergraduate student
> experience in Engineering ). I intend to apply for some funding this year –
> but only to try to mitigate my teaching load.
>
>
>
> The main requirement for the conference will be for access to a reasonably
> big lecture theatre, preferably somewhere in beautiful Scotland, and with
> decent accommodation and a campsite (for some very enthusiastic, but poor
> PhD’s) nearby. Date: sometime in late spring or for over the summer 2016
> (to repeat every even year thereafter).  Extent: three days to a week. Is
> there a possibility of finding some internal funding to help with this
> enterprise?
>
>
>
> To others in science and engineering: is there anyone else out there who
> would like to help?
>
>
>
> Regards, John Williamson.
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%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/20151102/a91422fb/attachment.htm>