[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Thu Aug 3 11:30:06 PDT 2017
Chandra,
do you really see a structural difference of photons (or of EM waves)
depending on their frequency/energy? You surely know that this does not
conform to the general understanding of present physics? And now in your
view: at which frequency/energy does the structure change? Because at
some point there must be a break, doesn't it?
Why do you think that photons (Gamma wave packets) do not have inertial
mass? They have energy, no doubt. And energy is related to inertial
mass, agree? Photons / Gamma wave packets - also low energy wave packets
- have a momentum and cause a radiation pressure. We know - and can
measure - the radiation pressure of the sun. Spaceships react on it. To
my knowledge, no one has never met a photons which no mass. The
assumption of no-mass is the result of a model, nothing more.
The conversion of particles is an unresolved question of present
physics. QM is giving descriptions - they have generation operators -
but as usual no physical explanation. - I find it funny that photons
can be generated in large numbers when an electric charge experiences a
changing field, supposed the necessary energy is present. The other
reaction, the conversion of a photon into an electron-positron pair is
in the view of my particle model not surprising. You may remember that
in my model a lepton and a quark is built by a pair of massless "Basic"
particles (which have electric charge). I find it possible that also a
photon is built in this way, but as the photon has twice the spin of a
lepton/quark it may be built by two pairs of basic particles rather than
one, which have in this case positive and negative electric charges. And
if now the photon interacts with another object so that momentum can be
exchanged, it may break off into two halves, so into an electron and a
positron as all necessary constituents are already there.
Why does a photon cause scattering, interference, and so on? Because in
this model it has positive and negative electric charges in it. And as
these charges a orbiting (with c of course) they cause an alternating
electric field in the vicinity, and so there is a classical wave causing
this wave-related behaviour. I find this simple, and it fits to de
Broglie's idea, and in addition it solves the particle-wave question
very classically. And this works independent of the energy (=frequency)
of the photon.
You have the idea of your Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is
an intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for all this,
which is as simple and as classical as possible (avoiding phenomena like
excitations), and at present I believe that my model is closer to this goal.
I think that this is the difference between our models.
Albrecht
Am 01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Your “photon” is of Gamma frequency, whose behavior is dramatically
> different from those of frequencies of X-rays and all the lower ones
> to radio. Yes, I agree that the behavior of Gamma wave packet is
> remarkably similar to particles; */but they are not inertial
> particles/*. They are still non-diffracting EM */wave packets/*,
> always traveling with the same velocity “c” in vacuum and within
> materials, except while directly head-on encountering heavy nucleons.
>
> I have written many times before that the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction
> integral correctly predicts that the propensity of diffractive
> spreading of EM waves is inversely proportional to the frequency.
> Based upon experimental observations in multitudes of experiments, it
> is clear that EM waves of Gamma frequency do not diffractively spread;
> they remain localized. */Buried in this transitional behavior of EM
> waves lies deeper unexplored physics. I do not understand that./* But,
> that is why I have been, in general, pushing for incorporating
> Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E), over and above the
> prevailing Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).
>
> Current particle physics only predicts and validates that
> Gamma-energy, through interactions with heavy nucleons, can become a
> pair of electron and positron pair. Similarly, an electron can break
> up into a pair of Gamma wave packets. Their velocity always remain
> “c”, within materials (except nucleons), or in vacuum!! They are
> profoundly different from inertial particles.
>
> This is why, I have also postulated that the 100% of the energy of the
> universe is in the form of a very tense and physically stationary
> Complex Tension Field (CTF). This CTF is also the universal inertial
> reference frame. Elementary particles that project inertial mass-like
> property through interactions, are self-looped resonant oscillation of
> the same CTF. This internal velocity is the same c as it is for EM
> waves. However, their The linear excitations of the CTF, triggered by
> diverse dipoles, EM waves are perpetually pushed by the CTF to regain
> its state of unexcited equilibrium state. This is the origin of
> perpetual velocity of EM wave packets. For self-looped oscillations,
> f, at the same velocity c, the CTF “assumes” that it is perpetually
> pushing away the perturbation at the highest velocity it can.
> Unfortunately, it remains locally micro-stationary (self-looped). The
> corresponding inertial property becomes our measured (rest mass =
> hf-internal). When we are able to bring other particles nearby,
> thereby introducing effective perceptible potential gradient to the
> first particle, it “falls” into this potential gradient, acquiring
> extra kinetic energy of (1/2)mv-squared = hf-kinetic. This f-kinetic
> is a secondary oscillatory frequency that facilitates the physical
> movement of the particle through the CTF. This f-kinetic frequency
> replaces de Broglie pilot wave and removes the unnecessary postulate
> of wave-particle duality. [See the attached Ch.11 of my book.
>
> Most likely, you would not be happy with my response because, (i) we
> model nature very differently, and (ii) I do not understand the
> physical processes behind the transformations: Gamma to
> Electron+Positron, or Electron to Gamm-Pair.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>
> Chandra,
>
> I now feel a bit helpless. I thought that I have written clearly
> enough that the Compton Effect is NOT the aspect I wanted to present
> and to discuss here. True that this was the original purpose of the
> experiment, but the aspect of the experiment used for my question was
> different. But now you write: "So, I assume that you are asking me to
> explain physical process behind Compton Effect by classical approach."
> What can I do that you do not turn around my intention? Write in
> capital letters?
>
> So once again the following process: An electron of a certain energy
> is converted into something called traditionally a "photon". Then
> after a flight of about 10 meters through air this photon is
> re-converted into an electron-position pair. The energy of this pair
> is exactly the energy of the originating electron. And again my
> question: How can one explain this process if it is not assumed that
> this "photon" carried exactly this amount of energy? And what is wrong
> with the assumption that this "photon" was - at least in this
> application - some type of a particle?
>
> You have attached several papers about photons. I have looked through
> most of them (as much as it was possible in a limited time). I have
> found almost nothing there which has to do with my question above.
>
> The first paper is about the Compton Effect. So, not at all my topic here.
>
> The second paper is a combination of several sub-papers. In the third
> of these sub-papers the author (Rodney Loudon) has presented different
> occurrences of a photon with respect to different experiments. And in
> his view the photon can exhibit a behaviour as it appeared in my
> experiment. In the others I did not find something similar. (Perhaps I
> have overlooked the corresponding portions and you can help me with a
> reference.)
>
> The third paper (of W.E. Lamp) denies the occurrence of a photon like
> in my experiment completely. How should I make use of this paper?
>
> Or what did I overlook?
>
> In general I see good chances to explain many physical phenomena
> classically which are according to main stream only treatable (however
> mostly not "understandable") by quantum mechanics. This is a master
> goal of my work. But the papers which you have sent me are all
> following main stream in using quantum mechanics. So, also the
> mystification of physics done by QM/Copenhagen. I thought that also
> you have been looking for something alternative and new.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 31.07.2017 um 21:45 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> “How do you explain */the process going on in my experiment/*
> without assuming the photon as a particle? (Details again below.)
>
> “And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my */PhD experiment,
> which was Compton scattering at protons./*”… Albrecht
>
> I picked up the above quotations from below. So, I assume that you
> are asking me to explain physical process behind Compton Effect by
> classical approach.
>
> I am attaching two papers in support of semi-classical approach.
> Dodd directly goes to explain Compton Effect by semi-classical
> model. Nobeliate Lamb puts down the very “photon” concept
> generically. I knew Lamb through many interactions. Myself and
> another colleague had edited a special issue in his honor (see
> attached) dedicated on his 90^th birthday.
>
> Chandra.
>
> */PS: /**/Regarding Philosophy:/*In my viewpoint, the */gravest
> mistake/* of the physics community for several hundred years has
> been to consider self-introspection of our individual thinking
> logic as unnecessary philosophy. Erroneous assumption behind that
> is to think that our neural network is a perfectly objective
> organ; rather than a generic “hallucinating” organ to assure our
> successful biological evolution. It is high time that physicists,
> as a community, start appreciating this limiting modes of thinking
> logic have been holding us back. This is why I have become a
> “broken record” to repeatedly keep on “playing” the same ancient
> story of five collaborating blind men modeling an elephant. Their
> diverse “objective” observations do not automatically blend in to
> a logically self-consistent living animal. Only when they impose
> the over-arching condition that it is a living animal, their
> iterative attempts to bring SOME conceptual continuity between the
> diverse “objective” observations; their model starts to appear as
> “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant, that we are trying to model,
> is a lot more complex system. We are not yet in a position to
> declare a*/ny of our component theories /*as a final theory!
> Fortunately, reproducible experimental validations of many
> mathematical theories imply that the laws of nature function
> causally. Sadly, Copenhagen Interpretation insists on telling
> nature that she ought to behave non-causally at the microscopic
> level. As if, a macro */causal universe/* can emerge out of
> */non-causal micro universe/*!
>
> ==================================================
>
> On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Chandra,
>
> my intention this time was to avoid a too philosophical
> discussion, interesting as it may be, and to avoid the risk to
> extend it towards infinity. So, this time I only intended to
> discuss a specific point.
>
> Therefore the main point of my mail: How do you explain */the
> process going on in my experiment/*without assuming the photon
> as a particle? (Details again below.)
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Thanks for your critical questions. I will try to answer
> to the extent I am capable of. They are within your email
> text below.
>
> However, I am of the general opinion that Physics has
> advanced enough to give us the confidence that generally
> speaking, we have been heading in the right direction –
> the laws of natural evolution are universally causal in
> action and are independent of the existence or
> non-existence of any particular species, including human
> species.
>
> History has also demonstrated (Kuhn’s Structure of
> Scientific revolutions) that all working theories
> eventually yield to newer theories based upon constructing
> better fundamental postulates using better and broad-based
> precision data. So, this century is destined to enhance
> all the foundational postulates behind most working
> theories and integrate them into a better theory with much
> less “hotchpotch” postulates like “wave particle-duality”,
> “entanglement”, “action at a distance”, etc., etc. Our
> community should agree and stop the time-wasting
> philosophical debates like, “Whether the moon EXISTS when
> I am not looking for it!” Would you waste your time
> writing a counter poem, if I write, “The moon is a dusty
> ball of Swiss cheese”?
>
> */In summary, leveraging the evolutionary power of
> self-introspection, human observers will have to learn to
> CONSCIOUSLY direct further evolution of their own mind out
> of its current trap of biologically evolved neural logics
> towards pure logic of dispassionate observers who do not
> influence the outcome of experimental observations!/* Let
> us not waste any more of our valuable time reading and
> re-reading the inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We are
> not smarter than them; but we have a lot more
> observational data to structure our logical thinking than
> they had access to during their life time. So, lets
> respectfully jump up on the concept-shoulders of these
> giants, a la Newton, and try to increase our Knowledge
> Horizon. Bowing down our head at their feet will only
> reduce our Knowledge Horizon.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path
> to introspection
>
> 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. [Sorry
> there are no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth. Even a
> few atoms per 100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an effective
> refractive index for light in that volume. The outer space
> is a bit more rarer.]
>
> I forgot to say: Measurement of c outside a gravitational
> field. - Of course this and the vacuum is nowhere perfectly
> available, but we come so close to it that we have
> sufficiently good results. In the gravitational field on the
> earth the speed of light is reduced by round about a portion
> of about 10^-6 . And in the DESY synchrotron there was a
> vacuum good enough so that c was only reduced by a portion of
> about 10^-15 . I think that this comes close enough to the
> ideal conditions so that we can draw conclusions from it. And
> the equations describing this can be proven by a sufficient
> precision.
>
>
> 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.[I am more comfortable with Lorentzian
> logics than Einsteinian. However, I do not consider this
> thinking will remain intact as our understanding evolves
> further. ]
>
> Which kind of changes do you expect?
>
>
> So, it is true physics.[Sorry, I do not believe that we
> will ever have access to a final (“true”) physics theory!
> We will always have to keep on iterating the postulates
> and the corresponding theories to make them evolve as our
> mind evolves out of biological-survival-logics towards
> impartial-observer-logics.]
>
> Perhaps it was bad wording from my side. - Whereas I
> understand Einstein's relativity as a mathematical system, the
> Lorentzian is intended to describe physics. That was meant.
>
>
> 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.[I agree with you. All equations for
> propagating wave tell us that the speed is determined by
> the intrinsic physical tension properties of the
> corresponding mother “field”. I have not found acceptable
> logic to support infinite speed for propagating waves.]
>
> 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./*[There are number of papers that explain Compton
> Effect using semi classical theory, using X-rays as
> classical wave packets. De Broglie got his Nobel based on
> his short PhD thesis proposing “Pilot Wave” for electron
> diffraction phenomenon along with “Lambda= “h/p”. I
> happened to have proposed particles as localized harmonic
> oscillators with characteristic “Kinetic Frequency”,
> rather than wavelength (See Ch.11 of my “Causal Physics”
> book). This explains particle diffraction without the need
> of “wave particle duality”. I have separately published
> paper modeling, using spectrometric data, that QM
> predicted photon is a transient photon at the moment of
> emission with energy “hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a
> quasi-exponential wave packet with a carrier frequency
> “v”. This bridges the gap between the QM predictions and
> all the successes of the classical HF integral. ]
>
> I am sorry that I mentioned that this experiment was intended
> to check a specific property of the Compton effect. Because
> this fact is of no relevance for our discussion here. The
> relevant point is that an electron of a defined energy was
> converted into something which we call a "photon". And after
> about 10 meters flight through the air with a negligible
> deflection it was reconverted into an electron-positron pair,
> which then represented the energy of the original electron.
> And this was done for different energies of this original
> electron. - My question is how this process can be explained
> without the assumption that the photon did have a quantized
> amount of energy, which means it to be a particle.
>
> Regarding the particle wave question I have presented every
> time at our SPIE meeting in San Diego a particle model which
> is in fact a specific realization of de Broglie's pilot wave
> idea. I did not develop the model for this purpose but to
> explain SRT, gravity and the fact of inertial mass. The result
> was then that is also fulfils the idea of de Broglie. It
> explains the process of diffraction and the relation between
> frequency and energy. - And last time in San Diego I have also
> explained that it explains - with some restrictions - the photon.
>
>
> 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. [Albrecht, with my limited
> brain-time, I do not understand , nor can I dare to
> explain away everything. But, remember, that literally,
> millions of optical engineers for two centuries, have been
> using Huygens-Fresnel’s classical diffraction integral to
> explain many dozens of optical phenomena and to design and
> construct innumerable optical instruments (spectroscopes,
> microscopes, telescopes (including grazing angle X-ray
> telescope), etc. QM has never succeeded in giving us any
> simple integral equivalent to HF-integral. That is why all
> these millions of optical scientists and engineers give
> only “lip service” to the photon concept and happily and
> successfully keep on using the HF integral! My prediction
> is that this will remain so for quite a while into the future.
>
> I again refer to my particle model as said above. It explains
> all the known optical phenomena.
>
>
> Let us recall that neither Newtonian, nor Einsteinian
> Gravity can predict the measured distribution of
> velocities of stars against the radial distance in
> hundreds of galaxies; even though they are excellent
> within our solar system. However, Huygens postulate
> (Newton’s contemporary) of wave propagation model of
> leveraging some tension field still lives-on remarkably
> well. This significance should be noted by particle
> physicists!].
>
> I do not see what in detail is not postulated regarding the
> stars observed. My model also explains phenomena like Dark
> Matter and Dark Energy if you mean this. And my model of
> gravity (which is an extension of the Lorentzian relativity
> to GRT) is since 13 years in the internet, and since 12 years
> it is uninterruptedly the no. one regarding the explanation of
> gravitation (if looking for "The Origin of Gravity" by
> Google). Maybe worth to read it.
>
>
> 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
> <mailto: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-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto: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 atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
> <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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto: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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <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 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>
---
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/20170803/c7b71275/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list