[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Tue Aug 1 11:52:07 PDT 2017

Eric says: Dear Albrecht. Please.  I would like a copy of your thesis.  Thank You.  Eric S Reiter

On Monday, July 31, 2017, 2:26:20 PM PDT, Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com> wrote:

Albrecht:

Thank you for Einsein's Paper especially a german version. As I said I can no longer remember the exact reference for the formula and but it was a book edited by Sommerfeld " The principle of Relativity" in which several of Einsteins papers were translated into english. I'll try to chase it down.

I'm sorry I do not find your references to synchotron experiments that prove the speed of light is constant, I do have your thesis experiment but thought this pertained to the photon question , nor can I find your equation of the change in c in a gravitational field.

But in any case is the formula mc2 = m0c02 *(1/(1 + 2x/c02-v2/c02)1/2) = ~  m0c02 + mx - (1/2)v2  where "x" the local gravitational potential,  not correct for a single mass particle traveling at velocity v , and is the approximation not correct for v< c? 

According to Mach's principle  mc02 = -mMuG/Ru   in other words mc02 is the gravity potential in intergalactic space but still inside the mass shell 

So these considerations gives me a very simple classic visualization of most of the relativistic effects,  when v4/c4 terms can be neglected. All I've done is acknowledged that there is a universe mass shell gravity effect on the  speed of light, and if we accept that then we can retain most of our classic physics. 

What I am looking for is experiments that prove Einstein's general relativity is correct beyond the v4/c4 approximation. 

AS an interesting aside if you accept that all we need to do is include the Mass shell in the gravity potential then we can rewrite the energy relation as a momentum relationship 

mc = m0c0 *(1/(c02 + 2x  - v2)1/2) =  m0c0 *(1/(V-T)1/2) = m0c0 *(1/(L)1/2) 

and multipying by c0
gives    mcc0 = m0c02  *(1/(L)1/2) 
which suggests the Relativistic correction simply accounts for the fact that phase rather than group velocity is used in some measurements like michelson morely and light bending while group velocity is used in Shapiro's measurements. I have not pursued this but always wondered that the wave mechanics has a phase x group velocity be a constant.

Wolf
 Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 7/31/2017 8:08 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Wolf,

attached I have added here the original paper of Einstein from 1905 as a facsimile (so in German). I cannot find your equation in his paper.

Regarding the change of c in a gravitational field: I have given you several times the equation for that. So not a point of discussion. But you complained in the other mail that you have asked me half a dozen times for a measurement of the speed of light, without response as you said. For this I have given you the reference to my earlier mail where I referred to and explained the permanent measurement of c in particle accelerators, particularly in synchrotrons. Also in synchrotrons it follows from the finiteness of c  that the mass m increases with an increasing energy of the particles. 

Further questions?

Albrecht

 Am 31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:

Albrecht:

That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905 Paper , I gave the book back to the Library and will have to order it again to verify exactly the context Einstiein used it. It may be I copied the formula wrong and Einstein actually wrote c = c0*(1/(1-v2/c2)1/2) which the gives c2 = c02 +v2.

In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and takes the small velocity approximation one gets mc2 = mc02 *(1/(1-v2/c02)1/2) =~ mc02+1/2 mv2

I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc02+1/2 mv2  if mc02= -GmMu/Ru . So I'm saying if we simply recognize that a mass "m" even stationary has a gravitational potential inside the mass shell of the universe then at least to terms v4/c4 a completely classic model actually gives us all of the experimentally verified Relativity predictions. 

Furthermore if we write mc2 = m0c02 *(1/(1-v2/c02)1/2) then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m0 or c0 one apples the SRT correction to. You like applying it to the mass and say that mass increases. I thought it makes more sense to apply it to the speed of light 

Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins formula or not the argument I was trying to make is the same. The speed of light depends upon the gravitational potential in which the measurement of the speed of light is made, it is not constant

Wolf

 Dr. Wolfgang 
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Wolf,

in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle accelerator and particularly a synchrotron is a permanent check for the speed of light, and in particular also a check of the Lorentz transformation where it describes the behaviour of an object being accelerated towards c. And that a behaviour of physics regarding c different from the Lorentz transformation would require a different design of particle accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream regarded the measured value of the speed of light is permanently confirmed.

And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following equation for the speed of light:
c2 = c02 *(1/(1-v2/c02)1/2).
What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there exist conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I have referred. 

Albrecht

 Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:

Clarification: 

I have submitted equations in which the approximation of ( +2mmlG/r -2mc2- mv2)-1/2 = ~   1/2 mv2 + mc2 -mmlG/r

So that simply by recognizing that mc2 is  the classic potential energy inside a mass shell  -m *Mu* G/Ru  ofthe Universe we get a very simple cosmology that is completely consistent with all known experiments - the assumption is simply that the speed of light as a surrogate  for the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena is dependent upon the gravitational potential which was shown by Shapiro's experiments. and light bending.and clock slow downs. I interpret  c2 is the universe escape velocity. 

This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but only that if we could get outside the mass shell in flat space where the gravitational energy of the universe mass is zero the speed of light is some reference c02   In both case the speed of lighjt and the energy is only determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is important is the relative energy or speed of light 

I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent physicist doing physics. I'm only claiming that the the first order approximation is all I know that has been experimentally verified length contraction and close to speed of light experiments are only verified through circular reasoning 

I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that show otherwise a half dozen times but am always ignored 

wolf

 Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Chandra,

you have written here a lot of good and true considerations; with most of them I can agree. However two comments from my view:

1.) The speed of light: 
The speed of light when measured in vacuum shows always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result as a fact in so far that the real speed of light is constant. However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity then only the measured c is constant. It looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is in motion, the instruments change their indications so that the result shows the known constant value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian relativity because in this version the relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known physical behaviour. So, it is true physics.

There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He has in the preceding discussion here given an equation, according to which the speed of light can go up to infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict with any measurement.

2) The quantisation of light:
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons.  An electron of defined energy was converted into a photon. The photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small angles (so almost no influence) and then re-converted into an electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy of the originals electron. This was repeated for electrons of different energies. - I do not see any explanation for this process without the assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined energy, not a light wave. 

How does this fit into your understanding?

Best wishes
Albrecht

PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?

 Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:

Wolf:

You have said it well:

“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now…”. 

Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally flawed postulate by the theoretician Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken Experiments”. Unfortunately, one can cook up wide varieties of logically self-consistent mathematical theories and then match them up with “Gedanken” experiments! We know that in the real world, we know that the velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and the velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light wave inspired him to construct SRT and sold all the mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional. Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, …. dimensional system where many of the dimensions are “folded in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a measurable physical parameter. We can contract or dilate frequency of diverse oscillators, using proper physical influence, not the running time. Frequency of oscillators help us measure a period (or time interval). 

Wise human thinkers have recognized this “Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which are obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five blinds can collaborate to construct a reasonable model of the Cosmic Elephant and then keep on iterating the model ad infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of external objects projected inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to survive economically and feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The result is the current sad state of moribund physics thinking. Fortunately, many people have started challenging this moribund status quo with papers, books, and web forums.

So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in physics coming within a few decades! Yes, it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” of 1905 still dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical engineer ever try to propagate an “indivisible quanta”; they always propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor is a causal signal. [I have been trying to correct this fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal Physics”.]

Coming back to our methodology of thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized the approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to remain anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].

However, one can immediately bring a challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up by our neural network for survival; then who has the authority to define objective reality? Everybody, but collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.

Let us realize the fact that the seeing “color” is an interpretation by the brain. It is a complete figment of our neuro-genetic interpretation! That is why none of us will succeed in quantitatively defining the subtlety of color variation of any magnificent color painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is not an objective parameter; but the frequency is (not wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle difference, from seeing “color”, to quantifying energy content per frequency interval. This is “objective” science determined by instruments without a “mind”, which is reproducible outside of human interpretations.

And, we have already mastered this technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has been nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion years without the intervention of humans. We are a very late product of this evolution. This is an objective recognition on our part! Our, successful evolution needed “instantaneous color” recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in our earlier stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as a species. And we now have become a pest in the biosphere, instead of becoming the caretaker of it for our own long-term future. This is the sad break in our wisdom. This is why I am promoting the concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps generate a common, but perpetually evolving thinking platform for all thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social Engineering (Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).

Sincerely,

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
 Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM
 To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
 Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Chandra:

Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine but the transcript is available and Anl Seth states what many people studying the human psyche as well as eastern philosophy have said for centuries , Yes we are Hallucinating reality and our physics is built upon that hallucination, but it works so well, or does it?

However  as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine  contends  https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is

What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the disk, but these icons as well as the "hallucinations" are connected to some reality and we must take them seriously. Deleting the icon also deletes the disk which may have disastrous consequences.

For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts route and try to understand the universe and photons first based upon the idea that it is independently real and then solve the human consciousness problem or we can take the opposite approach and rebuild a  physics without the independent physical reality assumption and see if we cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory. Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of light assumption is one of the first pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now , a property we individually apply to all our observations. 

best

Wolf
 Dr. Wolfgang Baer Research Director Nascent Systems Inc. tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com  
On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:

Dear colleagues:

Lately there has been continuing discussion on the role of observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.

We must guide ourselves to understand and model the universe without human mind shaping the cosmic system and its working rules. This suggestion comes from the fact that our own logic puts the universe to be at least 13 billion years old,  while we, in the human form, have started evolving barely 5 million years ago (give or take). 

However, we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined and decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate perpetual iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on advancing. This is well justified in the following TED-talk. 

Enjoy:

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image

Chandra.

 _______________________________________________ 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> 

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com  |

 _______________________________________________
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>

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 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>

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 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>

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at unquant at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.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/20170801/fb0a7bbe/attachment.htm>