<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:191892189;
mso-list-template-ids:-196990038;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Good progress happening!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Many thanks, Andrew; and many thanks to all the participants! <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>We will have a great “meeting”, a great “discussion” and a great “conference proceeding”!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Eventually we will succeed in turning around the mode of physics thinking out of its current stagnancy towards perpetual and iterative advancements!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Andrew Meulenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 07, 2015 8:09 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> [General] Positions<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Dear Folks,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Viv has taken a different 'position', but a valid one that is worth heeding. We now have 2 positions in March and 2 in April.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Andrew<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>March 2015<o:p></o:p></p><div><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/2015-March/000219.html">[General] Positions </a><a name=219> </a> <i>Chip Akins </i><o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/2015-March/000230.html">[General] Positions </a><a name=230> </a> <i>John Williamson </i><o:p></o:p></li></ul><div><p class=MsoNormal>_ _ _ <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Vivian Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear All,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The themes of this discussion group are the "Nature of Light and Particles .." and "electrons as oscillating photons .." or otherwise. It arose from John W and others considering the possibility that electrons can be explained as "double hooped electromagnetic oscillations", "rotating" or "toroidal" photons" or similar descriptions. We should all be aware that attempts to attribute a structure to electrons immediately takes us out of the realm of quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle limitation. As quantum mechanics is one of the pillars of modern physics, it sets up a "collision course" with "standard model" physicists. Taking on the "establishment" is not an easy task. (It is also well outside the theme of this discussion group.) But neither is it an impossible task. In the final analysis, experimental observation is reality and even accepted "standard models" will eventually give way to experimental reality. Only by coming up with experimentally verified data that is predicted by a non standard model theory can we hope to make any progress. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The various models for the electron are said to come from properties of a photon making two revolutions within its wavelength. This gives individual electrons their spin of half hbar as well as the reason for E = mc**2, E being the photon travelling in a straight line at c and m being the same photon travelling at c in a circle of radius hbar/2mc. Of course these depend upon the nature of the photon, which is the basis of this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Several presentations about the nature of photons have been forwarded. There seems to be general agreement that linear photons come from Maxwell's equations. They have energy equal to Planck's constant (h) multiplied by frequency (nu). In free space they travel at the velocity of light c, having wavelength lambda = c/nu. Their electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and can rotate giving circularly polarised photons. Various suggestions are made about their measured spin 1 x (hbar) property. Some suggest spin is angular momentum and circularly polarised photons have spin 1 x hbar) while plane polarised photons do not have angular momentum. Even here there is disagreement. This brings the discussion back to the questions "What are photons" and "How do you describe them?" After all it is the properties of the photon that will determine some of the properties of electrons under this general discussion group. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>So, getting back to the discussion topic. Does anyone want to expand on the above description of the properties of photons? I would like to suggest this is done by describing the physical principle first. In describing the property, it would help to give experimental verification for the property attributed. For example, if a photon has n oscillations giving it spatial length of n x lambda, rather than a length of just 1 x lambda, please indicate the experimental evidence for it and why this is interpreted as n and not some other number. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As mentioned earlier, if we want to be taken seriously we need to make progress against the standard model. This group needs to suggest experiments that can be performed and will give different results from the standard model. Of all the ideas forwarded to date, only one experimentally measurable prediction has been suggested to this discussion group about the nature of the electron. That is, an electron is not a point particle, being instead a double hooped electromagnetic oscillation, rotating photon, or whatever. Calculations have been referenced to papers by several of us, which suggest that its rest radius is hbar/2mc, or 1.93 x 10**-13 m. This radius diminishes with increasing speed, being < 10**-18 m at TeV. There is some discussion as to whether the radius diminishes according to 1/gamma or 1/(gamma)**2, but that is something that can be checked experimentally. It has been suggested that experiments to carry this out could be performed for only a few million dollars and would give very significant results.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You need to look at this discussion group from the perspective of "standard model" physicists viewing all the correspondence. (Yes, spying on email does happen.) Any standard model physicist would see that Chandra has presented us with a wonderful opportunity to give our ideas, which are not considered mainstream, an exposure to some "mainstream" physicists for discussions on the nature of light and particles. Much of the discussion presented so far has been made without supporting measurements. More than one participant has chosen to introduce "pet theories" that have no direct link to the structure of photons or electrons. What do you think standard model physicists would think? A brief answer is that its participants can't keep to the topics and appear more interested ideas than facts. In short, a group that is not demonstrating any reason why it should be taken seriously. This is a discussion on the nature of light (photons) and particles, particularly the electron. Introducing concepts such as general relativity and gravity in discussions of the nature of light and particles (electrons) is not helpful. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Gentlemen (and ladies if you have joined in), we are all experienced scientists. We all know this topic is a general discussion on the nature of light and electrons (other particles can be included where appropriate). Let us stick to those topics in a serious manner. A position paper should represent a position on the nature of light and particles. Describing a position on anything else is wasting time unless it is used directly to support the nature of light and electrons. As was mentioned earlier, if describing a property of a photon, please give a reason for it to have that property, physical reasons preferred. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>John M, you informed me you had a model of a photon that was better than the single linear electromagnetic oscillation you read in my original electron paper. This is what I and others want to know. The more information about the nature of the photon that is supported by observation the better position we will be in to determine "the nature of light and electrons". But please, support it with experimental observation or a suggested experiment that could verify your hypothesis. So far you have only stated you have ".. ideas (which you say) can be experimentally supported, ..". I and others look forward to reading the experimental support for 6). This is not the right forum to show experimental support for the other topics. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>John W and I have previously invited anyone who can make suggestions for other possible experiments that could also be used for determining the correctness of otherwise of their model. In order to achieve some useful outcome from this great opportunity Chandra has made available to us, we must remain focussed on the topic. For an alternative theory on anything to be accepted over the current "standard model" interpretation, it must make testable predictions. If anything useful is to come out of this great opportunity Chandra is presenting, it will be best measured by the number of testable predictions forwarded by this discussion group. The only way standard model physicists will take this seriously is when our predictions match observations that are not supported from "standard model" predictions. I would like to ask that the discussion keep to experimentally observed (preferably with a brief description or reference) or testable statements. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You may take my request as my "Position Statement" for this discussion group.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Cheers,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Vivian Robinson<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>