[General] Your query

Mon Apr 25 15:48:41 PDT 2016

John;
I've attached my paper and CC's Eric so he can send his if he wishes.

I agree we are all looking at the limitations of QM formulations in the 
every day macroscopic world.

My approach however is to first off look at the observer and see how 
physical formulations depend upon the concepts and limitations imposed 
by the observer. Most people, and I'm not necessarily including you, 
stick to the old independent reality concept and try to build more and 
more complicated models in that independent objective reality. If we 
start off by realizing that classical physics is the physics of the 
system that knows, builds theories , and displays interpretations of 
interactions and QM should be the physics of that knowledge and display 
mechanism which naturally limits what it can display and theorize as the 
cause of its sensations to the construction rules of its own mechanism 
then we would get a handle on the "rose colored glasses syndrome" and 
perhaps make progress.

ERic and I will be participating in a discussion group at the FOM III 
conference in Berkeley May 20 on the topic of "Obserer-Inclusive 
Physics" along with Henry Stapp and others.

best,
Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 4/25/2016 10:53 AM, Hodge John wrote:
> Wolf:
> Please send links to your papers. We and Reiter seem to have similar 
> goals - replace QM. Therefore, the Theory of Everything is a basic 
> Newtonian/ Gr model (matter warps space, space directs matter) which 
> is my STOE.
> I think you are asking a question about my line of thinking.
> I have suggested the principle that the universe is fractal (self 
> similar) on all scales. That is, the quantum world should obey the 
> same equations as our everyday world. The scale difference then 
> requires new models to show the similarity. The QM model and its 
> bizarre models such as wave-particle duality and entanglement need to 
> be re-addressed in everyday terms. That is what the STOE attempts.
> I developed the STOE model (in many, sometimes long papers) to explain 
> Young’s Experiment by a calculating model of photons - Now achieved (I 
> hope). Now experiments are necessary.
> I think the Hodge Experiment can distinguish between wave and 
> particle. The STOE is needed now because it presents a model. The next 
> need is to do the experiment with a known (read in our everyday size 
> world) wave such as water and a known particle such as the walking 
> drop of the Bush reference. If these observation are different, the 
> separation of the experiment from the STOE would be achieved (given 
> the self similar principle). I’m thinking of building a water tank. 
> But that is looking problematic for me.
> Yes, electron diffraction does present some issues. However, the 
> following may have a way to produce the desired pattern as the first 
> mask. It seems a second such arrangement may be able to make the 
> second mask with a real slit to form the selection followed by another 
> interferometer to produce the resultant pattern. I haven’t looked into 
> it thoroughly because I don’t have the equipment.
> A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki and H. Ezawa, 
> "Demonstration of Single-Electron Buildup of an Interference 
> Pattern,"Amer. J. Phys. 57 (1989) pp.117-120.
> Do you think such a thing can be done? I think the usual diffraction 
> of electrons through crystals is probably impractical.
> The STOE postulates there are just 2 constituents (after Democritus) 
> and their interaction in our universe - particles (hods) and plenum - 
> names given because their properties dictate their interaction. Hods 
> warp plenum (like “space” GR got something there) and plenum directs 
> hods trajectory (GR and Bohm).
> EM radiation results from electron moving on a metal rod (antenna). 
> What is radiated - particles that then hit the detectors or plenum 
> waves that then cause electrons in the detector to move? Whatever 
> charge is must be indicated by the EM radiation. For example, if 
> charge is a characteristic of particles - what characteristic - their 
> shape, any oscillations. If charge is a plenum characteristic (your 
> resonate antenna effect. The STOE suggests ``entanglement’’ is a 
> resonate-plenum-effect on matter.), what character - wavelength, 
> combination of frequencies? How does this make electron neg. and 
> positron +?
> Why need a photon? Because the goal is to refute QM. Many papers 
> (years) ago - the need was to form a basic model to address QM in 
> everyday terms - wave or particle. ``A single model of light has 
> remained a mystery. Black body radiation, the photoelectric effect, 
> and the Compton effect observations reject the wave-in-space model of 
> light. The reflection, diffraction, interference, polarization, and 
> spectrographic observations reject the traditional particle model of 
> light.’’ To refute QM, either (1) a wave model of the Black body 
> radiation, the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect needed to 
> be developed or (2) a particle model of reflection, diffraction, 
> interference, polarization, or spectrographic effects needed to be 
> developed. I thought along both lines for a time. I thought I saw a 
> way forward with the particle in Young’s Experiment. It seems to be 
> working.
> Your question on the-resonate-effect-on-an-absorber is a possible 
> alternate if the EM has to be a wave.
> If a photon model is not acceptable or you want resonate effects of 
> waves, then a model of Black body radiation, the photoelectric effect 
> should be developed. Actually, given the hod/plenum concept, this 
> doesn’t seem impossible. A resonate effect could look like a particle 
> result in an experiment (is that your point). But the photon is 
> easier, or so I thought.
> The ``wave model of light’’ suggests a wave going through the slit 
> that then forms the diffraction pattern. Very straight forward. But 
> suppose the goal is to have a (single) particle going through the 
> slit. What directs it? Young’s Experiment and the walking drop suggest 
> an edge effect. If the particle is between the mask and screen, what 
> directs it?
> In the walking drop experiment (BTW this is the experiment that 
> suggested I try for a particle model for the wave observation) there 
> is no wave coming through the slit to direct the drop and the drop 
> does change direction after the slit. Because plenum (gravitational) 
> waves direct matter (GR), very specific plenum waves are required to 
> direct the photons after the slit. The only source for wave source is 
> the moving photon. Hence, the need to reflect (which also gives us the 
> QM effect of observer/wires/equipment on the experiment - one less 
> peculiarity to worry about which implies a simplification to the 
> overall model).
> Part of the claim is that the STOE describes Young’s Experiment with a 
> particle model, then shows a difference with the wave model (side of 
> illumination). ``The math of the full slit, diffraction experiment for 
> STOE particles with plenum inertia can be mathematically transformed 
> into the Fraunhofer wave model with HF assumptions \citep[Section 
> 4]{hodg15a}.’’ ``The STOE model of particles and the wave model of a 
> continuous medium yield indistinguishable results for the screen image 
> in the traditional diffraction experiment.’’ However, the claim needs 
> to be supported with further experiment. The water experiment should 
> do this (1) show Fraunhofer diffraction on second mask position, (2) 
> show Fraunhofer diffraction on screen when second mask is centered, 
> (3) move second mask so slit has varying illumination, and (4) see 
> most energy on the same side.
> The rational for doing the Experiment was that the STOE model 
> suggested a difference between a wave model and the STOE model (Fig. 1 
> in the first paper you commented) while showing indistinguishable 
> results for Young’s Experiment.
> Did this (long) message answer your last query?
> Hodge
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160425/e58053f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Baer_SPIE2015_as-submitted.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 678912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160425/e58053f4/attachment.doc>