[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

[Chip Akins]

Hi Grahame

 

Thank you for those kind words.

 

It feels to me as if physics has stagnated simply because it has followed one (or two) of those “wrong philosophical paths”.

 

We as a species have done this so many times before that we should be aware of and attentive to our tendencies.

 

We now know that the earth is not the center of the universe. But, had we said that at certain times in the past, we would have been ostracized.  The solution was really quite simple, but we as a philosophically motivated species turned our backs on the evidence. 

 

Our philosophy normally contains a certain arrogance.

 

Assuming the act of observation changes an event is one of those arrogant views.  Interactions change the state of particles.  If we try to measure the properties of a BB using BB’s to bounce off it, we will cause interaction.  We have not made any significant change by “observation”, but rather by causing interaction. The concept of superposition as often taught as part of QM is, in my view, nothing better than a superstition borne of ignorance and intellectual philosophical arrogance.  Please pardon me for being so abrupt in the wording, but this is really ludicrous to me.

 

In the early 1900’s a group of “really bright guys” decided to interpret experiment in Copenhagen, and sent us on a wild goose chase for many years. That has wasted so many otherwise productive man-hours of thought and research.

 

Likewise, we have generally accepted SR as gospel, when SR does not show cause. Another expensive detour.  Now we have renowned physicists who really believe the many weird implications of SR. 

 

As you and I have both discovered, (as well as several others like Robert Close), there is a form of relativity which is absolutely dictated by nature if fermions are light-speed confined energy.  I discovered this quite accidentally a few years ago.  This approach is an inescapable consequence of matter being made of light.  All we have to do is do the math and we can clearly see that SR cannot be correct.  SR is close, but not quite right.  And the parts of SR that are not quite right are exactly the parts which cause the difficult paradoxes, and the inaccurate perceptions, like retro-causal signaling, the belief that we can travel in time or see events before they happen.  And even in this group, SR has caused some of the very brightest and most capable physicists to believe that photon emission and absorption are a single event at a single point in “space-time”. This of course would mean that a photon, in its frame, emitted a billion years ago and viewed by me, on my farm, tomorrow night, predetermined that I would be standing in that very spot, and looking in that direction, at that exact time, in my frame.  So we have no way to change the future.  It is cast in stone already.  Nothing we can do can change anything.

Now of course there are elaborate “explanations” as to how the emission and absorption can be a single event at a single point in “space-time” in the frame of the photon, and not predetermine our future.  But those explanations are much like the complex descriptions of the motion of the stars and planets since earth must be the center of the universe.  These complexities are simply not required when we understand what is really happening.

 

Now, it is time for me to say, (and mean) that I might be dead wrong.  But life and my experiences with the universe for the last 50 years since I started studying physics, have taught me that the answers, once we understand them, are all really quite robust and simple.  Of course we don’t need to oversimplify, nor do we need to overcomplicate things to arrive at the correct answer.

 

There have been brief moments in our history as a species where we clearly realized that science is about cause and effect. But then we allow philosophically based theory to distract us for a while, before we find our errors and correct them to get back on track once more.

 

Let step down from this worn soapbox now.

 

I applaud your willingness to challenge us to consider the cause, and to challenge any error we find in theory. For these are the foundations upon which we will build, so we need them to be correct.

 

Chip

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 1:06 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Hi Chip,

 

I have to say, I love this post!

[Yes, I have to 'fess up that one reason that I like it so much is because I've been thinking along very similar lines - part of what I want to include in my next more general response.]

 

In my time I've been involved in a number of team-based software engineering projects, including leadership of a few big ones (my CEng is for software engineering).  One of the major developments in such endeavours (generally, not just in my camp) was the introduction of a (fairly abstract) concept labelled 'egoless programming': different members of the team had responsibility for different aspects of the task, but of course it was essential for those elements to fit together.  One major impediment to this, it became clear, was if one member of the team thought 'their' bit of coding was particularly neat, particularly clever.  At the end of the day, the ideal solution is one in which no team member has gone overboard in trying to imprint their personality onto it - not always easy to achieve, sometimes the odd team member would drop out in disgust at 'not being properly valued' (usually an ego thing); but the end product could generally be reckoned to be better than the sum of all its parts.

 

'Egoless science' may likewise prove to be a difficult goal - but if we in this team can achieve it who knows what might come of it!?

 

Best,

G

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Chip Akins <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>  

To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>  

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:56 PM

Subject: Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities

 

Hi All

 

This comment is not so much about the science as it is about the scientists.

 

It seems to me that, due in part to philosophy, the discoveries of the 1800’s and 1900’s have been misinterpreted, and forced to fit theories which were philosophically motivated.

 

With each new discovery, the proponents of popular theory scramble to explain the apparently conflicting results using their favorite (philosophically motivated) approach.  While all along saying “let the experimental data be the final authority”.

 

The universe does not care about our philosophy or what our popular theories are at this tiny moment in our evolution.

 

This forum has been an enlightening experiment for me.  I have watched as participants have largely discarded the ideas of others in favor of their own. I have been guilty of this as we all probably have.

 

The reasons for this are many.  We have all done a significant amount of research and therefore developed our own philosophy. If a suggestion differs from our perception (which is motivated by our philosophy) we often do not take the time to study the suggestion.  Of course we have to do this to some extent to weed out the useless, and use our time wisely, but while doing so it would be better for us to make sure we are not throwing out some good stuff along the way. Any one of us could be on the wrong track and failing to see it because we are not able to adapt to a new perspective. Do we want to waste years going down the wrong path? Only to find later that we could have taken a better path and made more progress for humanity?

 

There is only one solution to this set of problems, and that solution will not change because of our individual, or collective, perception. So we are only harming our own progress when we don’t intelligently listen and try to prove clearly whether a suggestion could be legitimate.

 

One thing which has become clear to me over the years is that theory is almost always philosophically motivated.  And any theory which does not start by showing cause is one which I suspect and will try to reevaluate.

 

We really know so little of our universe.

 

So in my opinion, Chandra’s suggestions that we reevaluate our perspectives and methods of thought is an urgent one for the development and progress of physics. 

 

We cannot prevent philosophy from influencing our thoughts, but if we are consistently aware that we could be just flat wrong, we will fare better in our endeavor. When we decide that we have found the answer and stop looking we have closed our senses from further discovery.

 

I consider many of you to be my friends and hold you in very high esteem. I would love to see you win the Nobel Prize.  But more than that I would love to see you solve many of the remaining puzzles so humanity can see the awesome universe clearly, finally. So that humanity can then develop the resources for us to continue to evolve and flourish.

 

It is my opinion that among the contributions to this ongoing discussion lie the keys to unlocking many of the remaining puzzles of the universe. But that not any one of us has really understood how these pieces fit.  I think some are very close to that more complete understanding, but that all of us might be allowing our existing body of work and our existing philosophy to hinder our next steps in making real progress.

 

All the best to each of you in this endeavor.

 

With Warmest Regards

 

Chip Akins

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160715/6957264a/attachment.htm>