[General] Let there be light

[David Mathes]

Chandra
A few comments in blue...
David 
      From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
 To: David Mathes <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 3:15 PM
 Subject: RE: [General] Let there be light
   
#yiv5591754581 #yiv5591754581 -- _filtered #yiv5591754581 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5591754581 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5591754581 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5591754581 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 4 5 2 3 3;} _filtered #yiv5591754581 {panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}#yiv5591754581 #yiv5591754581 p.yiv5591754581MsoNormal, #yiv5591754581 li.yiv5591754581MsoNormal, #yiv5591754581 div.yiv5591754581MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5591754581 a:link, #yiv5591754581 span.yiv5591754581MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5591754581 a:visited, #yiv5591754581 span.yiv5591754581MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5591754581 span.yiv5591754581link-enhancr-element {}#yiv5591754581 span.yiv5591754581link-enhancr-view-on-domain {}#yiv5591754581 span.yiv5591754581EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv5591754581 .yiv5591754581MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv5591754581 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5591754581 div.yiv5591754581WordSection1 {}#yiv5591754581 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 foundationalpostulates 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.
Perhaps not theories but experiments. Experimental predictions are highly desirable in any theory  to newly discovered papers and perhaps new experiments, even if the theory is a best-fit revision.
At the same time, a theory is not alone since modeling and simulation are powerful tools in checking to the extent a particular theory is correct. A rigorous paper would address all four: theory, experiments, modeling and simulation.     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.
Key assumptions might include cGh, charge-parity-time (CPT), surface/near-field/far-field,    For experiments, there is the nagging question of whether we have measured everything possible. More importantly, can we factor out the sensor effects to get at the "true" effect, or are we bound to discern results through the eyes of an interactive sensor.
 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.     Think differently...how is it that a photon traverses the universe. Is it really unaffected over 13 to 20 million years?
Could there be a post-Big Bang - yet another assumption - part of space, or perhaps at the edge of the known universe, where the rules are slightly different? 
For example, if there is a region of space - no matter how large or small - where the permittivity is lowered, then by current theory, the value of c would be higher FOR THAT REGION only. Could we detect or discern such a photon traversed a zone with a higher speed limit for c?


 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. 
I'm all for a mathematical physics approach. However, this is not the only hammer in the tool box. In my work I cannot ignore deBroglie-Bohm nor Aharonov-Bohm. So perhaps we should leave the door open a little bit to hidden variables if only to avoid making a philosophical or critical reasoning error of trying to prove a negative. 
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.     Model has been proposed and is so noted. 
 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 morepropagating 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!   Whether sitting by the river or sea, surfing the ocean, or by or in the pool, I always enjoy watching the waves as if nature is trying to teach me something. "Deadliest Catch" series is about waves. They don't line up so easily, aren't in phase, reach a critical point and break, reflect...and even go rogue. The spontaneous rise of rogue wave is one of the most interesting since this type of wave challenged science which answered with disbelief despite damaged ships and numerous eyewitnesses. Of course, science revised their calculations and came up with 100 foot waves. Then the geologists and astrophysicists showed that a comet hitting earth such as in the Yucatan might generate a 1000 foot wave at hundreds of miles per hour. 
Tidal effects should also be considered.
A EM wave is rather complex. One can have the simple U(1) symmetry and be done with it making all sorts of claims about waves.   So I'm up to the point of thinking of symmetry of a photon as combining phase, polarization and spin into a symmetric energy wave. 
hv = U(1) X SU(2) X SU(3) X SU(4)  
The question is whether this math is valued, but under what conditions? Can we have amplitude added  such as phat photon theory suggests, or does E = N^2 hv mean that symmetry is violated? Does nature permit this violation? 
Charge is not adequately explained as to the source. Yes, we know charge is present and in the 21st century have built a whole civilization around electronics. Some models suggest that a photon may be charged. How is that?
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.
The good news is that mankind has a sun which still has a billion years before the fuel runs out. The bad news is  the Luis Alvarez hypothesis (1980) that a rock - an asteroid or comet about 10 miles in diameter  - would create a massive shock wave in the air and ground as well as a water wave. I'm wondering what kind of other waves were generated specifically EM.
Real-universe physics is required for real-world engineering.    This may appear to be a bit of rambling; but it does contain some kernel of what should be scientific thinking.   Nah. You hit the ball out of the park!
 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 
|    |
|    |   |    |    |    |    |    |
| 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  | 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 Couder Bouncing droplets simulate Zeeman effect - physicsworld.com Couder/Fort 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/20150710/11ea47e1/attachment.htm>