[General] Let there be light

Thu Jul 9 15:15:50 PDT 2015

Dear David:
“Could Carver Meade be right that we need to rethink our assumptions?”

Yes!
That is why I have been putting my efforts to keep this series of special SPIE conference series alive since 2005. And, of course, it is the participants who are keeping it fruitful. That is also why I had put my efforts to bring Carver Mead at our 2013 conference as the Keynote Speaker. I have repeatedly expressed similar views, as that of Carver, in my book, “Causal Physics” and many earlier papers. Let me take this opportunity to repeat my thinking.

My frustration is that even now our basic premise is that the foundational postulates behind our currently working theories, Classical, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are un-challengeable; which represents our collective Messiah Complex! These postulates beget the mathematically logical equation. Looking backward, a working equation represents the enfolded postulates. An equation being a frozen logic set; it is a close-looped system. It can only verify the imaginations that were enfolded within the original postulates; because we design our experiments to validate the parameters in the equation assumed (defined) by the postulates. We cannot extract fundamentally new knowledge out of any working theories beyond what were originally imagined under the foundational postulates.

This is why it is time to enumerate and enlist all the fundamental postulates behind all the working theories (Classical, Relativity, QM physics), starting from Newton’s laws (“mass”, etc.) to “Holographic Universe”. Then, based upon our latest experimental data and engineering wisdom, we should challenge them slowly, systematically and iteratively, without destroying the enormous success platform that we are standing upon currently.

The serious conceptual problem, of course, is how one does go about re-building a new foundation, while standing on the old foundation itself! We need to apply human engineering skills in our epistemological thinking. We need to employ our imaginations and start visualizing invisible interaction processes; which gives us some limited access to nature’s ontological reality. We need to figure out how to grab these thin threads of ontological realities and slowly learn to bundle them together to create stronger and stronger threads, and then ropes; and eventually, pull ourselves into nature’s ultimate reality – the cosmic rules that makes us emergent “material bodies” out of the invisible and imperceptible complex cosmic field.

For example, challenging QM by using its own formalism and prescribed experiments, we remain stuck within the formalism’s logical close-loop. David Bohm spent his life looking for “Hidden Variables” within the QM formalism. But, he never challenged the ongoing belief in wave-particle duality. Exp(iwt) does not represent only “plane wave”; it represents any and all harmonic oscillations, whether propagating harmonic wave or localized and self-resonant toroidal harmonic oscillations (electrons, protons, etc.).  Exp(iwt) can also represent an alternating current through a linear conductor, or inside a complex LCR oscillator with their own unique influencing properties!  Wave-particle duality represents our lack of deeper knowledge of the universe. It does not represent a new confirmed knowledge, despite the “democratic popularity” of Copenhagen Interpretation. We are a product of various rules of engagement between diverse natural entities. We cannot determine or invent those rules; we can only discover them; if we are patient and humble enough. Electrons and protons (most likely, self-resonant toroidal harmonic oscillations) are not guided by de Broglie’s “Pilot Waves”; they are self-sufficient entity; their harmonic phase is already embedded in Schrodinger’s “psi”. “psi” does not represent Born’s abstract mathematical “Probability Amplitude”; it is the real physical amplitude of oscillation of the various structures, emergent out of the universal complex tension field.

Other fundamental problem that we have thoroughly digested as the “truth”, is the mathematical Superposition Principle. The exp(iwt) of oscillating particles do represent the mutual excitation, but only when the appropriate potential gradient (force) around them allow for the mutual stimulation. When the stimulation is resonant and a quantum cupful of energy is available; the “quantum transition” takes place to minimize the “system energy” in the neighborhood of the cosmic tension field.

But, when the exp(iwt) represents two or more propagating oscillations (waves) of the tension field; they do not have the “structural” (or mathematical) capability to reorganize their mutual energy distribution in the absence of interacting dipoles (“localized” resonant oscillations). Both the classical physics of last several hundred years and the twenty first century physics have missed this trivially obvious, and yet, easily observable through daily experience. Fourier’s infinite modes do not exist in this cosmic system (energy violation); neither do the Fourier modes (or space finite waves) interfere (interact) to re-organize their energies. This is well illustrated in my book, “Causal Physics”. We can easily derive stationary nodes and antinodes by superposing same-frequency but axially oppositely going waves; but they do not represent stationary waves! One can verify this by simply tweaking one of the frequencies up or down; the nodes will start slowly moving one way or the other. Waves, by definition are always moving. Stopping waves destroys waves.  Starting up with non-causal infinite Fourier modes and then brilliantly managing the out-grown divergences do not constitute seeking ontological reality. It is a very clever way of “summoning” the observable “Solar Eclipses”. After all, Solar eclipses are real! So, we ought to be impressed!

Evidence based science is the best science. But, a collection of evidences alone cannot provide us access to the cosmological engineering principles; which we must muster to become spacefaring species and survive beyond the Solar warming coming in about a billion years. So, seeking ontological reality is of much higher importance because it would be the real-world engineering that will save the human species.

This may appear to be a bit of rambling; but it does contain some kernel of what should be scientific thinking.

Sincerely,
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of David Mathes
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 2:11 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: [General] Let there be light

All,

As I look at the various models about to be presented, I wonder how these models are related, and how they could be tested. In doing so, the assumptions we make are very important as to which path(s) are taken, if there is a path at all.

So today in Forbes there was an attempt to educate the public about quantum physics. The topics are summarized below but it is the pictures that will stick in the minds of people subject to their worldview. I claim we have a universe-level view. And some a multi-verse. However, the focus is on the photon and the electron.  We each look at the same data and yet develop bespoke models. Could Carver Meade be right that we need to rethink our assumptions?

David

From Forbes magazine today...

Six Things Everyone Should Know About Quantum Physics<http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/>

[image]<http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/>

Six Things Everyone Should Know About Quantum Physics<http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/>
Quantum physics can be intimidating, but if you keep these six key concepts in mind, you should be able to improve your understanding of it.

View on www.forbes.com<http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/>

Preview by Yahoo

1. Light is wave and a particle - in one picture

2. Discrete physics - Quantum by Copenhagen...BTW How does one freeze light?

3. Probability Physics - Multiple states at the same time? Is quantum measurement a squeezed state measurement?

4. Local vs non-local - Bach or Mach?

5. EPR - entangled states?

6. QM is Mostly Small?

Arndt     experiments by Markus Arndt’s group<http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2013/11/12/interference-with-10000-particle-particles-matter-wave-interference-with-particles-selected-from-a-molecular-library-with-masses-exceeding-10000-amu/>
Couder Bouncing droplets simulate Zeeman effect - physicsworld.com<http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/09/bouncing-droplets-simulate-zeeman-effect>
Couder/Fort Quantum Weirdness Replaced by Classical Fluid Dynamics<http://resonance.is/news/quantum-weirdness-replaced-by-classical-fluid-dynamics/>

It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century
will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.

Carver Mead in Collective Electrodynamics

2013 Nature of Light Keynote

http://www.cns.caltech.edu/people/faculty/mead/Nature_Of_Light_What_Are_Photons.pdf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150709/a52ba8db/attachment.htm>