<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div> Dear All,<br></div><div><br>Bob has addressed a point that should be too obvious to need
consideration. However, for many years, I ignored it and it appears that
most of us still do so. Conservation of charge. While it is possible to
posit and describe the electron in terms of a photon, recognition of
the requirement for charge conservation and the positive and negative
(but net neutral) nature of all photons must be accepted as a 'given'.<br><br></div>It
is for this reason that I have proposed the 4-D structure of the
electron/positron pair. It explains so much and leads beyond the
electron-only structure. I believe that this has to be a fundamental position for all of us - to be accepted, explained, and/or modeled in various ways. If not, then I fear that, as John W says, we will be unable "<span style="color:black">... to convince people we are not crazies..."<br><br></span></div><span style="color:black">The point is that while the 'twist' can explain the net charge of an electron, it presents the problem of what happens to the opposite field lines. They cannot be confined inside a 3-D container (topologically impossible w/o a charge source). My field-rectification and wormhole conjecture may not be the answer; but, it does address the problem. The field lines, as the gradient of a potential, presents a picture that Bob and I will be proposing for the dynamic potentials of standing waves within an interference pattern.<br><br></span></div><span style="color:black">The question is, "since there is no original potential within the space that becomes an electron, how does it get there?" Actually, to create an electron/positron pair, a strong electrical-potential gradient (such as a nucleus) must exist. However, after the lepton pair is formed, the nucleus structure is left behind and remains unaffected. The potential(s) formed are balanced and become the lepton masses. They are separated in space by the nuclear potential gradient. Are they also separated and combined in 'time'? If so, how and by what. The energy density of the 'internal' field lines being compressed, by the photon 'curling' as it passes the nucleus, will distort space (into time) and help create the wormhole joining the field structures that will become the lepton pair.<br><br></span></div><span style="color:black">This distortion is the electric potential created in the formation process. The womhole is the vortex that gives the pair stability (and perhaps their ultimate independence).<br><br></span></div><span style="color:black">If anyone can come up with other (perhaps better) models, or reasons why such might not be required, please bring them forth.<br><br></span></div><span style="color:black">Andrew<br>____________________________________<br></span><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:17 AM, robert hudgins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hudginswr@msn.com" target="_blank">hudginswr@msn.com</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><div dir="ltr">Dear Friends of Light, <br>Pardon my intrusion on your discussion. I have been warned that I will be excluded unless I actively participate. <br><br>Chip's
diagram's are beautiful! His skill is enviable. However, it provokes
questions. Why spin h and not 1/2? Are colors charge related? <br><br>The
photon may be a useful abstraction for expressing the way light energy
is packaged, rather than a stable, traceable entity. After the photon
energy has been assembled it may travel as a loosely entangled assembly
of EM waves that may follow unpredictable paths-- until they are
condensed and captured by a resonator. Though the electron is clearly
more discreet, it might also travel as an assembly of waves that pass
through both openings of a double slit while engaging in constructive or
destructive interference. <br>I am having conceptual difficulty imagining a topological twist that totally conceals only the positive charge of a photon. <br><br>Is
an EM wave having only negative polarity a plausible construct? Are
electrons without a positive partners being created with any frequency
today?<br><br>Thanks for your patience,<br>Bob<br><br><div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:chipakins@gmail.com" target="_blank">chipakins@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:59:56 -0500<br>Subject: Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson<br><br><div><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Hi All</span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Just finished computing a possible field topology for a photon with spin h.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Viewed from the longitudinal axis:</span></p><p><img src="cid:image001.jpg@01D07F81.A37BE960" height="460" width="522"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"></span></p><p>And the side…</p><p><img src="cid:image004.png@01D07F81.A36E2DC0" height="402" width="459"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"></span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black">Chip</span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"> </span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p><b><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt"> General [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces%2Bchipakins" target="_blank">general-bounces+chipakins</a>=<a href="mailto:gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark, Martin van der<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, April 25, 2015 6:47 AM<br><b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Einstein Philosophy by Dyson</span></p></div></div><p> </p><div><p>Dear Chandra,</p></div><div><p>I agree. I think that Einstein was even more right than he realized himself, but the future must show us.</p></div><div><p>Bohr
did a great job on finding the structure of the atom and introduced a
revoltionary way of thinking to hold up the postulates required. That
way of thinking, however, is merely a scafolding, and it should be
removed to see the truth and beauty lying hidden behind it.</p></div><div><p>Copenhagen interpretation is now no more than a dogma that hampers progress!</p></div><div><p>Cheers, Martin<br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><p>Op 25 apr. 2015 om 01:32 heeft chandra <<a href="mailto:chandra@phys.uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra@phys.uconn.edu</a>> het volgende geschreven:</p></div><blockquote><div><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Friends: </span></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">For
a brief moment, allow me to change the subject. Freeman Dyson is an
excellent writer. In the last part of his “Book Review” article
(attached), Dyson beautifully summarizes the three philosophical
positions of Einstein (Classical), Bohr (Duality) and the current
generation (</span><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Quantum-Only</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">).
To save time and to get to the philosophy segment, jump to the bottom
of the picture showing Bohr and Einstein goofing and relaxing!</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">My
philosophical position is more in line with Einstein; while
acknowledging that the one of the three key reasons behind the emergence
of quantum uncertainty is “because the processes in the second layer
are unobservable” (Dyson). This is why I have proposed, with
demonstrated experiments in my book (“Causal Physics”), that when we
start framing our enquiring postulates to imagine and visualize the
invisible interaction processes, the nature start to become a lot more
transparent even within the current QM formalisms. Further, this
philosophy of Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPME) shows that
current QM, in spite of its great successes, a next generation
formalism with deeper levels of enquiry has to be developed by the next
generation. In other words, I am suggesting that our Knowledge
Gatekeepers should change their blind devotion to currently successful
theories and encourage the next generation to come up with various
serious but radically different possible approaches. Our conference
platform is one such example.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">If
we do not deliberately frame our enquiring questions to visualize the
invisible aspects of nature’s interaction processes; we will forever
remain in the darkness of duality. Duality represents ignorance; it does
not represent new or better knowledge. We have to go beyond Bohr.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Chandra.</span></p><p><a name="14cf64a3c4683655_14cf39fc4b3f623f__MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></a></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra=phys.uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, April 24, 2015 9:46 AM<br><b>To:</b> David Mathes; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br><b>Cc:</b> Manohar .; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Articles of interest</span></p></div></div><p> </p><div><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">Dear David and everyone,</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">Sounds as though MIT does a bit of a better job of promoting itself than I do (what a surprise!).</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">There
is nothing much new in looking at single electrons. SLAC was doing this
for years in HEP with its linear accelerator. For that matter Millikan
was sensitive to single electrons with his oil-drop experiment – and
the school I went to was enlightened enough to let me do this experiment
myself at the age of sixteen or so. What is marvelous is that they can
make it sound as though detecting one electron something sexy! Robert
Hadfield (in our group) is in the business of detecting single photons
and John Weaver (in our group) has huge capability to look at individual
electrons with some of his work as well. This stuff is widely
published!</span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">More
important than looking at detecting single electrons (easy enough!) is
looking at the underlying sub-electron structure. Back in the late
1980’s and early 1990’s I was in the business of looking at just that. I
designed a single electron electrometer sensitive at down to about a
thousandth of the electron charge. If you look at my Google scholar page
you can find several papers related to this. The device could also be
used as a single electron pump, to deliver a stream of electrons phase
locked to the frequency of a varying gate potential. My paper (see
attached), looking at the electron sub-structure delivered electrons
one-at-a-time and probe the profile of the individual electron
wave-function with a resolution of better than a tenth of its de Broglie
wavelength. This experimental work did not stop when I left the field
of course. Leo Kouwenhoven, in particular, spent many years
investigating my single-electron electrometer device (and creating new
ones) in the last quarter of a century. There is now a very great deal
of experimental information about the inner structure of matter,
electrons (and photons) with which to work. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">What
was lacking then, and is still not widely accepted now, is a proper
theoretical framework within which to interpret this inner structure.
This is what we have to do. Firstly develop the theoretical framework
and secondly get the message out. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">We
have to convince people we are not crazies and that this is serious,
new science. That is what will be hard. Any communications of this to
the outside world needs to get rid of the speculative , ill informed, or
just plain wrong stuff that is perfectly ok within the context of an
online discussion or over a pint or two, but not ok at all if we wish to
make a serious attempt at convincing the outside world. </span></p><p style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="color:black">Regards, John.</span></p><div><div style="text-align:center" align="center"><span style="font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:black"><hr size="3" width="100%" align="center"></span></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>