<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Folks,<br><br></div><div>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.<br><br></div><div>Andrew<br></div><div><br></div>March 2015<br><div><ul><li><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>
</li><li><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>
</li></ul><div class="gmail_extra">_ _ _ <br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Vivian Robinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:viv@etpsemra.com.au" target="_blank">viv@etpsemra.com.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear All,<div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>You may take my request as my "Position Statement" for this discussion group.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Vivian Robinson</div><div> </div></div><br></div><br></blockquote></div></div><br></div></div>