[General] Conference, spring/summer 2016

[Wolfgang Baer]

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>