<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: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-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2016-07-02&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_buttonA">http://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2016-07-02&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_buttonA</a>
12-minute TED-talk by Julia Galef<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hello Everybody: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">This 12-min. talk, by a non-physicist pretty young lady, is worth for all of us to listen to periodically. This is a diversion out of directly discussing physics problem. But, I hope this diversion will be
energizing for most of you. <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">Our successful survival driven all of us to evolve as slaves of “Motivated Reasoning”. Understand the “Problem” as quickly as possible and then “Execute” the “Correct” solution. In contrast, scientists are
supposed to be of “Perpetual Scout Mindset”, always looking for higher and higher order connectivity between all natural phenomena by constantly looking for an-harmony within the current working theory to
<b><i>discover “Higher Order</i></b> <b><i>Conceptual Continuity”.</i></b><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">Unfortunately, our last 100 years of physics thinking has been demonstrating a higher degree of “Motivated Reasoning” over the “Perpetual Scout Mindset”, looking for
<b><i>“Higher Order</i></b> <b><i>Conceptual Continuity”</i></b> in all natural phenomena.<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">We can always be energized and motivated to do so by thinking how our productive thinking could be connected to our “Collective Sustainable Evolution” (live for-ever through our progenies). After all, “live
for-ever” is our deepest emotional desire. Adoption of thinking like <b><i>“reverse-system engineers”</i></b> helped our forefathers to assure the rise of the human species to become the “top dog” through persistent discovery of tools and technologies.<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">So, dreaming of <b><i>“Collective Sustainable Evolution”</i></b> as
<b><i>“Reverse System Engineers”</i></b> may not be a serious waste of our time!<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"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><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;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><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>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 02, 2016 5:48 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Grahame, Vivian and Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> I think we can all help each other by critically examining each other’s particle models and pointing out possible errors. For example, I spotted 2 serious calculational/conceptual errors in Vivian’s electron model which he hasn’t acknowledged
yet. The first is in his derivation of the lateral radius of a double-looping-photon electron model as it changes with electron speed, which he claims goes as 1/gamma (in your model the lateral radius of the double-looping photon’s trajectory doesn't change
with electron speed, while in my model the lateral radius of the circulating photon’s trajectory decreases as 1/gamma^2 with the electron’s speed). The second significant error is in his derivation of the de Broglie wavelength, using the relativistic energy-momentum
equation for the electron and its circulating photon. Can you spot these two errors? Vivian’s article is attached below.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>