[General] Your query

Mon Apr 25 19:44:11 PDT 2016

Wolfgang,

Thank you for your letter.  I am about to leave on a 10 day trip to Ireland
to visit relatives.  Therefore I probably will not get in much physics done
during this time.  I have attached a short summary of one aspect of my
work.  I just sent it out to the discussion group, but I am also sending it
to you directly. My model keeps generating new equations which are easy to
prove correct.  I take this as proof that I am on the right track.  Please
look this over and give me your comments.  These equations come from my
spacetime-based model.  I am working from the bottom up.  This means that I
start with the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime and then "invent"
a model of the universe based on these properties. It is amazing that I
generate answers to problems that I was not considering. For example,
gravity comes easily out of this approach.  Again this gives me a lot of
confidence.

I will be back on May 8, so perhaps I might attempt to catch your
discussion of it is available without paying the fees for the entire
conference.  Please send me the time and location if it is possible to only
attend the discussion group.

John Macken

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:

> 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" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at jmacken at stmarys-ca.edu
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jmacken%40stmarys-ca.edu?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/20160425/5142695a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fundamental Force and Radius Equations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 185287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160425/5142695a/attachment.pdf>