[General] Fwd: RE: Reply of comments from what a model…

Albrecht Giese genmail at a-giese.de
Mon Dec 7 06:14:24 PST 2015


Am 28 Nov 2015 17:15  schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>
> Albrecht: My responses are within your text below in blue ink.
>
> Attached documents will give further details.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 27, 2015 3:05 PM
> *To:* Roychoudhuri, Chandra; Nature of Light and Particles - General 
> Discussion; Richard Gauthier
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
> Chandra,
>
> thank you for your explanations.
>
> However what's about your statement: "So, there are no INERTIAL Frame 
> of Reference anywhere in this universe"? On the other hand you assume 
> a */Stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF)/*. In my understanding, the 
> CTF is just an example of an absolute frame of reference. How not?
>
> CTF is the ONLY universally stationary field in which everything, 
> stars and us, are manifest as diverse assemblies of localized 
> oscillations. We do not have multiple separate Inertial Frames for 
> different observers. We all are in moving frames. EM waves are 
> excitations of this stationary CTF and hence has the same velocity, c, 
> everywhere in the universe. When the space volume of the CTF is 
> regionally filled with different kinds of local oscillator-assemblies 
> (atoms and molecules); the CTF tension values are reduced and the 
> velocities of the EM waves are also reduced.
>
Maybe a problem of wording, but what you describe here is in my 
understanding just an absolute frame of reference of the kind by which 
e.g. Hendrik Lorentz has based his interpretation of relativity.

The other question is whether your assumption of the CTF provides easier 
solutions to our questions in physics than an "empty" space.
>
> *==============*
> By the way, I do not see SR (or GR) as the foundation of physics. But 
> we have relativistic phenomena, which are not fundamental for our 
> physical world, but certain facts which happen. I attribute the 
> relativistic phenomena to certain processes of particles and field, as 
> you may have noticed.
>
> Let's take an example which is quite simple. If we move a clock, then 
> the */clock runs slower/*. This can easily be verified if we move an 
> atomic clock. The same is true for all temporal processes and events 
> in physics. Now, if one star moves with respect to another one, all 
> temporal processes run more slowly. This is a fact which we cannot 
> deny. If we are now on a moving star and observe that the physical 
> processes are similar to those on a star at rest, then they cannot be 
> the same, but the effects of motion just compensate each other.
> *
> *There is nothing in this universe that keeps track of RUNNING TIME. 
> This concept is a pure figment of imagination by Humans; albeit being 
> very pragmatic and we have also invented reproducible  machines to 
> display the conceptual “RUNNING TIME”. But, in reality, we use 
> precision oscillators and count the number of complete oscillations 
> the oscillator has executed. For a pendulum-clock, the return of the 
> pendulum at the same physical location gives us the frequency. Human 
> math inverts this frequency into a PERIOD, and thinks of it as a TIME 
> INTERVAL. For atomic clocks, it is the frequency of the EM wave 
> packet; which is precisely determined by the allowed atomic transition 
> levels, (Delta-E)= (h-“*nu*”). [To my knowledge, the “*nu*” of a 
> moving atom translates into Doppler frequency shift after the quantum 
> transition has taken place, (h-“*nu*”).This is why atomic clocks are 
> operated at extreme low temperature.] A larger number of complete 
> oscillations gives the humans the sense of a longer time interval. 
> Different objects of nature, being built out of oscillators, all have 
> their own oscillation periods. There is no running time in the 
> inorganic universe. Only living biological organisms have developed 
> the perception of running time and long intervals of times by virtue 
> of their biological memory bank. This is why, I believe that SR is a 
> mis-adventure, away from proper understanding of physical processes 
> going in nature. **
>
> *=================================================*
>

I fully agree that "time" is a human concept. When we talk about time we 
refer to oscillations. The most basic oscillations which control all 
temporal processes in our physical nature are the oscillations with c - 
speed of light - in all elementary particles. And if we assume that this 
motion with c is related to a fixed reference system, then all 
relativistic relations regarding "time" are completely determined. This 
is (for this part) the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. There is 
nothing mystical about it. SR is a formal treatment of just this situation.

We humans have a special relation to time as we know that our lifetime 
is limited. So, I think, we can explains why "time" in our mind plays a 
bigger role than it plays in physics.
>
> **
>
> An example: Most physicists these days say that the speed of light is 
> the same on all moving systems. Can this be true? No, it cannot, 
> because if we measure the speed of light with a clock running 
> differently from another clock and we get the same result, it can 
> logically not be the same speed. We only measure the same speed which 
> is an illusion. This is true for all physical processes. So the 
> statement: */"The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS"/*are only 
> true as an illusion.
>
> If the assumption of the discrete emission line frequencies of atoms 
> and molecules are not the same in the coronas of all stars (besides 
> Doppler broadenings due to local temperatures), the entire 
> experimental Astrophysics will need complete re-evaluation! I do not 
> think so."The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS" is the most 
> logical assumption as of now. We may need to refine it further as we 
> evolve in our scientific thinking.
>
> *==============================*
>
What does it mean: In all stars? Isn't it our general understanding that 
the physical laws are the same? Normally the saying is that we have the 
same physical laws in all inertial systems. That is the Galilean 
relativity. Was maintained by SR, but in this context it is in my view 
just an illusion. And another step of Einstein: we have the same 
physical laws in all accelerated systems. That is Einstein's relativity 
in GR. And this is falsified as far as I understand.

But what about stars? They will normally be in motion with respect to 
each other. And so I did understand you statement as "same laws in all 
inertial systems". Maybe I misunderstood it?
>
> **
>
> Regarding the CTF I must confess that I have not read and not 
> understood the details. You say that it has dielectric and magnetic 
> tensions which determine the velocity of EM waves. This is an old 
> problem as magnetism is not an original force but a relativistic side 
> effect of the electrical force. So this way of thinking - like about 
> EM waves - may work in a practical sense, but it does not refer to 
> fundamental physical reactions. (That is not a specific problem of CTF 
> but as well of electromagnetism.)
> What about the */doughnut-like wavicles/*? It looks like a complicated 
> shape, at which wavicles are realized. I would like to better 
> understand what makes them stable with respect to their shape and to 
> their motion. Do you have a model for the stability?
>
> I have not carried out the mathematical details of CTF to generate 
> wevicles. Most of you are much batter mathematical physicists than me. 
> So, I leave it to all of you to explore CTF further. CTF does provide 
> the foundation for a one possible UFT (Unified Field Theory), 
> Einstein’s dream.**
>
> Doughnut-like wavicles are my imagination to achieve the emergence of 
> quantum-ness and stability of elementary particles. In-phase 
> self-looped propagation of EM waves allows for both stability 
> (quantization) and localization. Superconductivity of electrons, 
> within only the layered structures of a variety of superconducting 
> crystals, gives me the idea that electrons are more likely flexible 
> planar, doughnut-like wavicles. Protons most likely have different 
> wavicle structure; but must still possess extreme high frequency 
> self-looped in-phase EM waves like oscillation. Remember, I am just 
> trying to give imaginary structures that would conform to 
> E=m(c-squared); where (c-squared)=1/ [(epsilon)(mu)]. */The mass-like 
> inertial properties are quantitatively completely determined by the 
> electromagnetic tension properties held by the CTF./*
>
Do you have any quantitative model or better mathematics to deduce the 
inertial properties?

Protons are insofar different from electrons as they are no real 
elementary particles but composed of quarks. And I have a further 
objection, stated several times: c^2=1/(epsilon*mu) does not reflect the 
physical situation very well; better is the other order: 
mu=1/(c^2*epsilon), as magnetism, described by mu, is a side effect of 
the electric field caused by the finiteness of c.
>
> **
>
> Human invented mathematical logic-driven theories, constructed out of 
> smart set of postulates (logical imaginations) and then validated by 
> experimental data; are not sufficient to guide us along the definitive 
> correct path to extract the cosmic logics. We need to iteratively 
> modify, re-structure and revalidate the theories and modes of 
> experiments by anchoring ourselves to repeatedly imagining the 
>  invisible physical interaction processes going on in nature. We have 
> been successfully doing the (i) mathematical theorizations and (ii) 
> experimental validations; and yet Physics has been stagnant for almost 
> a century (a bit less!). Let us recognize Einstein’s advice, “It is 
> the theory that names the parameter we measure”. Imagining the 
> invisible interaction processes in nature provides us with another 
> deeper level of access to cosmic logics (ontological reality).
>
I fully agree that the process of understanding the nature is a cyclic 
one. But I see another problem: sometimes some errors are fed into the 
logical process of development of theories which are not noticed for a 
long time. To avoid those does not need much philosophical 
considerations but just a critical mind and the willingness not to 
believe forever opinions, which we have been given by those "giants". 
One historical example was the proof of John von Neumann that QM is not 
compatible with a deterministic world. Von Neumann's proof was very 
exiting for the founders of QM (like Heisenberg) and it must have been 
carefully read by all theorists. But it took ca. 30 years until John 
Bell noticed that there was a big logical error in this proof. I knew a 
strict follower of Heisenberg (Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker) who 
refused to read the paper of Bell as he liked the result of von Neumann. 
- In the discussion with this group here it turned out that the initial 
equations of de Broglie regarding matter waves are logically wrong. 
Another example of permanent believe. If we succeed to avoid such 
situations we will have some progress independent from other means.
>
> So, we must learn to systematically imagine and keep on refining that 
> “picture of interaction processes” that are going on in nature. 
> Theories, validated by data are no longer sufficient for human 
> intellectual evolution to understand nature!
>
Also history has shown than in many cases a good model was simply not 
seen for a some time. Take the planetary system of Copernicus. Or the 
periodic system of elements found by Mendelejew. We must be open to find 
new models which may possible provide solutions and are on the other 
hand based on honest physics.
>
> *===========================*
> At the end, the goal in physics was always to have a simple solution 
> which starts from some as well simple assumptions and is able to 
> explain all observations. Do you see this too as a goal?
> *
> *I do enjoy simplicity, elegance, symmetry, etc., but I do not put too 
> much “stock” in them, as far as trying to make theories about nature. 
> The entire set of physical processes, from the very beginning to the 
> finishing behind the birth of a baby, overall quite complex, although 
> separate segments possess different qualifiers. Perfect symmetry would 
> stop interaction processes and freeze the interactions in the evolving 
> universe. The universe is majestically beautiful because of its 
> perpetual evolution; and the beauties are full of complexities and 
> asymmetries!*Chandra.*
>
I agreethat symmetries are not the general solution even though main 
stream believes this these days. But I doubt that evolution is 
applicable here because that is a trial and error process. It works in a 
way that for a problem a huge number of solutions is offeredin nature 
and one or few are selected. I cannot imagine that this happens in the 
field of elementary particles or of the universe.

Sincerely
Albrecht


> Am 22.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
>     Albrecht: May be you are finally finding the limitation behind
>     using SR as the foundation of Physics.
>
>     No stars or galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect
>     to each other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference
>     anywhere in this universe. Yet, line-centers of the emitted
>     spectral lines are identical whether the light is collected from a
>     distant star; or from a discharge tube on earth. And even the
>     Doppler line broadening are precisely given by the local ambient
>     temperatures.
>
>     The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial
>     frames; which does not exist). So, we need the postulate of the
>     stationary CTF.
>
>     The universe is manifest as various kinds of excitations of the
>     STATIOINARY Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are linear
>     excitations and hence move perpetually with the same velocity
>     determined the dielectric and magnetic tensions of CTF. Particles
>     are “wavicles”, localized in-phase self-looped propagation of
>     waves of the CTF - doughnut-like (hence resonant and the origin of
>     quantum-ness). These self-looped waves are like EM waves; but they
>     are not quantized photons; they are quantized “wavicles”. Because
>     finite EM wave packets (no Fourier modes exist) and particles
>     (“wavicles”) are some-what similar propagating excitations
>     (un-looped and self-looped) of the same CTF; they are eminently
>     inter-convertible when the energy contents allow this through
>     conservation of energy. The root cause behind the observable
>     universal energy conservation is due to the fact that CTF, by
>     itself, cannot dissipate the excitation energy in its own body;
>     one excitation must be converted into another set of excitations.
>     Forces in this CTF model are due to the various secondary
>     potential gradients generated around the “wavicles” in the body of
>     CTF.
>
>     I understand that my CTF model for particles and waves; and the
>     current model of particle theory with the forces as quantized
>     exchange particles, are incompatible!
>
>     Sincerely,
>
>     Chandra.
>
>     ==================================================
>
>     *From:*General
>     [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>     Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>     *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM
>     *To:* Richard Gauthier
>     *Cc:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>     *Subject:* Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…
>
>     Hello Richard,
>
>     I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model.
>     What I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for
>     relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has
>     satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model
>     where logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If
>     there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the
>     other aspect, I will be happy to see it.
>
>     Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:
>
>         Hello Albrecht,
>
>           I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in
>         my opinion) 2-particle electron model.
>
>     Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:
>
>     1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of
>     oscillations
>     2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise
>     results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)
>
>     I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I
>     have not seen any.
>
>
>         Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears
>         for you to write:   "Then I had to determine the field
>         constant S which is normally provided by experiments. But
>         quantum mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value
>         of the strong force that there is no number available in the
>         data tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton
>         to determine the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c,
>         merely a constant).” ?
>
>     I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a
>     better quantitative explanation or determination of the strong
>     force. His answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough
>     understood so that I cannot give you better information.
>
>
>         How could the number S  that you could not find in “unprecise”
>         tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that
>         can be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton
>         ehbar/2m and which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an
>         unbelievable, desperate stretch of imagination and "grasping
>         at straws", in my opinion.
>
>     When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I
>     have used the measurements available in that context to determine
>     my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I can use the
>     Planck / Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E =
>     m*c^2 to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in
>     my model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do
>     you know any other model which deduces these relations rather than
>     using them as given?)
>
>
>         Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from
>         http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws :
>
>
>             grasp at straws
>
>         Also,*clutch** at straws*.Make adesperateattempt atsaving
>         oneself. For example, /He had lost the argument, but he kept
>         grasping at straws, naming numerous previous cases that had
>         little to do with this one/.Thismetaphoric expression alludes
>         toadrowning person trying tosave himself bygrabbing atflimsy
>         reeds. First recorded in1534, the term was used figuratively
>         bythe late 1600s.
>
>         I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or
>         save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck
>         described his efforts to fit the black body radiation equation
>         using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an
>         "act of desperation”.  So you are of course free to keep
>         desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron
>         hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in
>         physics could be better spent in other ways, for example in
>         revising your electron model to make it more consistent with
>         experimental facts.
>
>     Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent
>     with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without
>     needing the usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?
>
>
>            By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form
>         a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between
>         molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to Wikipedia:
>
>         " the *van der Waals forces* (or *van der Waals'
>         interaction*), named after Dutch
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands>scientist
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist>Johannes Diderik van
>         der Waals
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals>, is
>         the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between
>         molecules <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule> (or between
>         parts of the same molecule) other than those due to covalent
>         bonds <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond>, or the
>         electrostatic interaction
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction> of
>         ions <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion> with one another,
>         with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.^[1]
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1>  The
>         resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or
>         repulsive.^[2]
>         <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2>
>
>
>     Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well
>     a combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the
>     same like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason to refer
>     to them.
>
>     Best regards
>     Albrecht
>
>
>         with best regards,
>
>               Richard
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151207/0ef8cd8d/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list