[General] Conference, spring/summer 2016
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Nov 3 16:51:33 PST 2015
This is not close to home but I attended Vigier 9 last year and there
are a lot of similar minded folks there.
its an option
Preliminary announcement for the 10th Symposium in honor of Mathematical Physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier
UNIFIED FIELD MECHANICS II
Portonovo, Italy
24 July (Monday) to 28 July (Thursday) 2016
http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/index10.html
Prior Symposium website:
http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/index9.html
Please send Titles / Abstracts to
amoroso at noeticadvancedstudiesinstitute.us
Sincerely,
Cochairmen Profs.
Richard L. Amoroso
Louis H. Kauffman
Peter Rowlands
Gianni Albertini
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 11/2/2015 1:44 PM, John Duffield wrote:
>
> I’m interested in a conference that’s closer to home.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* 02 November 2015 09:44
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; 'Anthony Booth'
> <abooth at ieee.org>; 'Ariane Mandray' <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
> *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 Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20151103/698c7afa/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list