[General] Gravity

[Albrecht Giese]

Dear Chandra,

thank you for your mail; and I wish you good luck for your activities. 
Will be curious what it is.

Sincerely
Albrecht


Am 13.09.2016 um 22:24 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Dear Albrecht:
>
> Pardon me for not replying many of yours, and others, very justified 
> scientific questions.
>
> I am in the midst of “battling” something that is very valuable for 
> all of us.
>
> I would be needing participation from all of you in the near future 
> and I will explain that to all of you.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On 
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:11 PM
> *To:* af.kracklauer at web.de; phys at a-giese.de; 
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi!
>
> Am 12.09.2016 um 20:34 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de 
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:
>
>     *Gesendet:* Montag, 12. September 2016 um 16:59 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
>     <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>     *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>     *Betreff:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
>     Hi Al:
>
>     " "Photons"  (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an
>     object of observation.  PEROID."
>
>     In this case please explain the corresponding process in my
>     experiment, i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where
>     all necessary physical quantities for an individual photon have
>     been conserved. The distance between generation and detection was
>     about 10 m.
>
>     AK:  You didn't see any photons, rather the pair after the split
>     and infered what happend based on the taget location and the cite
>     of the 'pair production' and their subsequent orbits in a bubble
>     chamber (or equivalent).  [If I got the experiment wrong, please
>     describe the target and detection apparatus.]   BTW, respecting
>     conservation laws does not require direct observation of a means
>     of interaction between source charges and sink charges, (modulo an
>     uncharged---i.e. unobservable---sink charge).
>
> In the experiment photons have been generated  having a certain 
> energy. 10 meters downstream an electron-positron-pair was generated 
> representing the same energy. So, there was some object flying between 
> the generation point and the detection point which transported just 
> that energy. And this object did not have any charge. (Otherwise it 
> would have been deflected away as there was a strong magnetic field.)
>
> If it should not have been a photon as you suspect, should we give 
> this object a different name? Do you propose a name? Then we could 
> have new physics. Existing physics tells us that it was a photon.
>
>
>     And hi Chandra:
>
>     Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot
>     wave" in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have
>     e.g. electrons and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar
>     rules like the Maxwell equations?
>
>     AK:  If the "pilot wve" itself is not of E&M origin, what is it?
>     How does it work?  [Granted deBroglie himself did not have
>     specific models for his pilot wave; but others have!  For example,
>     see #11 on my web page, www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com
>     <http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com>]
>
> We could also use the understanding of present main stream physics: 
> All particles like photons, electrons, neutrons are a particle and a 
> wave at the same time. If we take the mode as wave in case of the 
> photon we can use Maxwell's equations to describe the situation. -  I 
> like the pilot wave of de Broglie better as it is perceptible by human 
> imagination. In the case of the photon the superposition of all pilot 
> waves would in that case fulfil the requirements of Maxwell's 
> equations. Something equivalent should happen to the superposition of 
> the pilot waves of e.g. electrons and neutrons. De Broglie did not 
> specify what the pilot wave is made of. He assumed his "waves of 
> harmony" without further specification. That sounds a bit mysterious. 
> In the case of hadrons those should be waves of the strong force.
>
>     Albrecht
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> 	
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160914/e293f950/attachment.htm>