[General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

Thu Jun 16 22:47:51 PDT 2016

Hello Nature of Light people;John W mentioned Cahill's recent SPIE presentation.  It was a simple zener diode setup.  I built a pair of his zener arrangements and tested them many ways.  I tested it his way and several of my own ways, looking for anything like his report.  I just saw uncorrelated noise.  I did this in collaboration with Wolfgang Baer, and we corresponded with Cahill several times to make sure we were doing things the way he was doing it.  We suspect an obvious artifact source. We begged Cahill to make a simple, obvious adjustment that we think would remove his artifact-signal, but he refused.    If anyone cares for me to elaborate, I will. 
Eric Reiter, Pacifica CA

      From: John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 7:51 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] PS: Matter comprised of light-speed energy

#yiv3884896844 #yiv3884896844 --p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv3884896844 #yiv3884896844 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv3884896844 #yiv3884896844 -- _filtered #yiv3884896844 {} _filtered #yiv3884896844 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3884896844 {font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}#yiv3884896844 #yiv3884896844 p.yiv3884896844MsoNormal, #yiv3884896844 li.yiv3884896844MsoNormal, #yiv3884896844 div.yiv3884896844MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Cambria;}#yiv3884896844 .yiv3884896844MsoChpDefault {font-family:Cambria;} _filtered #yiv3884896844 {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}#yiv3884896844 div.yiv3884896844WordSection1 {}#yiv3884896844 #yiv3884896844 BODY {} Hello John, Richard, Viv and Grahame and everyone.
Reg too, if you are out there.

Richard and Viv are so right, you too Grahame (in a different way) and  you too John (in yet a different way). Being right however, does not make something else "wrong". A theory is something which, as a theorist, one steps into and out of like a suit of clothes. It is appropriate within its realm of validity. It is a childs model of the universe, valid in some respects, and helpful to us in aiding thinking. Einstein was a great thinker, who thought many thoughts, and any specific quote of his cannot be taken to circumscribe that thinking or be definitive of the truth. I agree: Einstein would be horrified at us holding him up as an authority. So would any proper scientist!
We have had a discussion, at length, earlier on this forum. You can download the stuff and there are hundreds of pages from me alone on this topic – so I can not and will not reproduce that all here. Some disconnected jottings follow, however.
Now I have not been able to look at your web-pages yet. They use Java, which I do not allow to run on this machine. Do you have anything on the same stuff in plainer form?
I am with you on this Grahame: the base postulates of special relativity are not completely correct in all possible scenarios (for example in the presence of gravitational fields as John mentions). Having said this, for all practical purposes, the corrections to SR of GR are negligibly small and theories attempting to use this to confine the electron, such as geometrodynamics do not work because the resultant forces are just far too small. I am also aware that many of the experiments purported to “prove” SR may be interpreted as arising from different effects such as variations in the stuff of which the measurement equipment is made. There are also experiments to support the existence of an “absolute” frame. One of the major exponents of this, Reg Cahill, gave an interesting talk at SPIE but has not been involved in discussions further on this forum. None of this matters. Even if SR is wrong in detail, it is very very right in many respects in that it provides, over a wider range of phenomena in my view, a better description than anything else of equal simplicity and beauty. Now, for my theory, I do not start with SR, but with a deeper principle I call absolute relativity (AR!). This comes about, for me, from trying to understand what the elementary process we call multiplication and division actually MEAN when we apply them to such things as “space” and “time”. That is what does “division” parallel in the underlying natural universe when we divide “space” by “time” and get “velocity”. Now this underlying process, whatever it is, is well-described in an engineering sense, by SR. On the other hand, I can derive the base relations of SR from a deeper set of principles. That is what I am after: the basis on which the natural world resides, and from which the phenomena of the natural world (all of them) can be described. I am just curious as to how everything works. For me, I try to understand this by rigorously defining “multiplication” and “division”, maintaining tokens representing space and time and such things as areas and volumes in space-time through my new theory. The result seems to be – if one does this, one derives continuous electromagnetism more elegantly than in standard textbooks, derives forces capable of turning a localized photon and forming the double loop, derive the basis of quantum electrodynamics capable and also derive a theory which precisely parallels SR in one limit. I think this is quite cool.
For me, as an engineer, what is most important is what works. What is important for me as a theorist is finding as complete a description of as much of the natural universe as is possible, based on as few and as natural a set of starting parameters as possible. I keep putting on taking off my various theoretical “hats”, looking at it this way and that, and trying to puzzle out what makes most sense, and what leads to the most complete description. For me, as for you, and as for many of us here, at present that seems best viewed through the prism of light, its underlying basis and light inter-actions. For me the basis of this is deeper than field, or even than space and time, but has to do with the root of “space” and “time” and “energy”. Theory is not a chocolate box where one can pick what one likes and forget the rest – lots of it impacts elsewhere. New theory must maintain and underpin the old where this works well. Old practical theory (by “practical” I mean stuff that allows one to engineer new stuff, not airy-fairy stuff pulled out of your nose and further useful for nothing- like string theory) is not usually “wrong”, it is just not quite fully “right” in every respect.Now you ask: is there any support for SR out there? The answers is: yes lots! There are loads of supporters! Although not familiar in everyday life to most, as a professional at CERN one uses it to design the machines which accelerate particles (it works!), to describe the increase of energy with velocity, limited by lightspeed, (it works!), to understand the apparent (many hundreds of times) longer lifetimes particles exhibit if they are moving at close to lightspeed (it works!). To describe the limiting of particles to lightspeed, whatever the added energy, (it works). To describe, equally, things accelerated hitting objects virtually at rest with respect to the distant stars, and the same objects hitting each other in a colliding beam machine (I have worked on both sorts of experiments – it works, believe me) It works, works and works again. Now I understand that competing theories work in many respects, but I have yet to see one which does them all (the killer for many is getting the observed time-dilation right). Now for me it is fine to discard or deepen the conceptual basis. That is what I am trying to do. It is NOT fine, however, to throw any theory away unless you replace it with something equally good or better – and that precisely parallels what one observes in reality, that allows one to engineer a particle accelerator, and that allows one to understand the measured properties of particles as observed in experiment. 

SR may be “wrong” in detail at the outer margins, but it is very, very right in practice. Whatever replaces it had better reproduce it where it counts – or it will be contradicted not just by “experiment” but by actual standard engineering practice.

Regards - John.
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at unquant at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.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/20160617/3bf95be4/attachment.htm>