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

[Roychoudhuri, Chandra]

Eric: Excellent comments in purple ink.
My responses are in “green” below after your “purple”.
I hope my “green “ comments are “green” in the sense of developing an evolution congruent epistemology. I am, of course, very much open to modifying the model of my Cosmic Elephant as I learn more and more from all of you, which is the very purpose of this forum.
Chandra.
=====================================================
From: Eric Reiter [mailto:unquant at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
Subject: Re: FW: [General] a deeper path to introspection

Dear Chandra,

Thank you for inviting my input.  It is well known that gamma-rays diffract, first seen by Rutherford with rock salt diffraction.
Here is that reference, for the fun of it: "The wavelength of the soft gamma rays from radium B," Philosophical Magazine, May 1914, pg 584.  I have the books of his collected works.

This still leaves open the question: does gamma light hold itself together as a wave packet?  My thoughts are below.  Please realize those thoughts are from 17 years of witnessing unquantum effects in my lab.   The only thing my experiments need is for someone to reproduce them.  I have detectors to lend anyone offering to do that.

I have not seen the details of Albrecht's experiment yet, and I plan to look into it.  It seems to be starting with the Compton effect and ending with the photoelectric effect.  I did derivations of both of those effects, devoid of photons.

Thank you,
Eric S Reiter
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Eric: Since you have direct experience with Gamma-ray experiment; I would appreciate knowing whether you agree/disagree with my comments to Albrecht. Feel free to respond through our “discussion system”.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf OfRoychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 5:56 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection


________________________________
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 EMwave packets,

ER: Of course you are correct about light not having rest-mass.  However, gamma does diffract. This is often interpreted as a probability wave.  But that construct suffers from wave function collapse.  The wave-packet does not help. To what transverse extent does a wave-packet need be, to explain waves interfering over macroscopic space?
[I will have to study “Gamma diffraction” experiments. From the stand point of “Conceptual Continuity”, that I prescribe; I do not have serious doubt against this diffraction. I just was not aware of them.]

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.

ER: you are responding to the clicks in our detectors that make it look like a particle hit there.  Also, many experiments are interpreted in terms of particles.  These experiments can be alternatively interpreted with a threshold model.  To see this takes much work to re-analyze experiments.  The threshold model works for me.  To see it work convincingly requires seeing that e, h and m are all thresholds.  It is much better than ghost waves that QM give you.
[OK. More to learn: “e, h and m are all thresholds” – more to learn for me.]

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).

ER:  Hopefully, you will see that my experiment explains such deeper physcs.  Gamma does not hold itself together.  It can be split like a wave, but we still measure a characteristic detector pulse-height, related to so-called photon energy.   Others have shown the relationship of detector pulse-height being proportional to electromagnetic frequency.   Realizing that my gamma-source emits one at a time, and reading coincident detections greater than chance, we witness a two-for-one effect, an unquantum effect.  This is not contradicting energy conservation; it contradicts the photon model.  This effect is enhanced when the photoelectric effect efficiency exceeds the Compton effect efficiency in the detector.  Conditions in many detectors are usually against my unquantum effect.  An experimenter not knowing a reasonable alternative to QM will easily make an experiment that seemingly confirms QM;  they will see chance.

Gamma gives the illusion of being localized, but it is easily understood otherwise by realizing a threshold effect upon detection.  The more difficult problem is to see how so-called particles with rest-mass can diffract.  I resolved that issue also, with my alpha-ray beam-split tests. In either case, the wave function can exist in macroscopic space.  Then upon detection, the wave function must instantaneously disappear across all space.  From observing wave-particle effects we can take a good guess that there is something very wrong with quantum mechanics.
[A before, I need learn and appreciate, “realizing a threshold effect upon detection”]
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.
ER: Right. Light is different from rest-mass.
I add: there is no such thing as a charged photon.   There are no photons either. Cloud chamber tracks do not happen for gamma.  A threshold model embraces quantization at its threshold levels, but allows for sub-threshold states to explain our wave properties.
[I believe QM is basically right and the spontaneous and stimulated emissions are “quantized” quantity of energy. So, I have postulated that, at the moment of level transition, a “transient photon” ‘brick’ is released in the tension field (modified old ether); which then evolves into quasi-exponential wave packet propagating out diffractively, following integral like that of Huygens-Fresnel. ]

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.

ER: I take light-to-charge reactions as resonant.  Matter to matter reactions need not be resonant.  This makes it difficult to picture how a matter-wave, like in charge diffraction, can load-up.  It calls for an inner wave, like Schrodinger's psi (or your CTF or something) that resonates.
[Please, check out section 11.5.1 to appreciate how I accommodate “particle diffraction” through “Superposition Principle” and “Superposition Effect”. I have also proposed an experiment using a mono-energetic Rb-beam to validate my model. I have been trying find who can carry this experiment out. ]
===================================================
This internal velocity is the same c as it is for EM waves.
ER: agreed.

 However, 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 = he-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 = he-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.
ER: It looks like we agree that kinetic energy loads-up to (threshold) = (he)  to make an absorption event.   It is an old idea.  Planck, Somerfield, Debye and others worked on it.
Chandra, I made a copy of your book years ago.  In Ch 11 pg 215 you claim to make rest-mass particles cancel out.  Charge diffraction at low count rates tell us we are not dealing with an ensemble effect like that.  Our wave properties happen at one-at-a-time count rates.
Therefore... I agree the pilot wave is false.  The wave is real however.  In experiments showing wave interference, I stand with the particle-model being false.

It looks like  (rest mass = hf-internal)   means mc^2 = hf (eq 1).  I have always argued against that.  All experiments involving h are for kinetic energy or momentum.  The only exception is when f is large enough to do pair creation. This is a threshold frequency effect.  That eq 1 should not be interpreted as true in general.  It is a special case.  hf = (mv^2)/2 is true.  We can guage the frequency in light, and in the matter-wave as well.  We know the matter-freq from its velocity and wavelength, directly from experiments.  When one compares this f with the f in eq 1 we see different numbers.  Maybe you realize that, but I know others in this forum do not.   In either case, as long as one tries to have some frequency guiding particles, one will be in trouble.  If the wave comes from a particle, it has a center and will not show interference.  If the wave did not come from the particle, where did it come from in such a way to explain one-at-a-time interference?
[In need to ponder upon these set of comments for a while before I can re-model the “trunk” of my Cosmic Elephant”.
ER says: “If the wave did not come from the particle, where did it come from in such a way to explain one-at-a-time interference?
CR: I have presented in my Ch.11.5.1 why one particle at a time is counter to the very causal definition of the Superposition Principle – two or more phase information are SIMULTANEOUSLY at play in stimulating  the detector. Since a stable single particle cannot become multivalued, anticipating ER has set up an experiment, simultaneous presence of multiple particles, carrying multiple phase information is the causal solution. So, that is what I have proposed for the Cosmic Elephant playing with each other! ]

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.
 ER: For the matter wave, I like using the construct of Schrodinger's psi.  The envelope of psi is charge.  If you look at Schrodinger's famous first paper (~1926) you will see he means wave-envelopes of psi.   In my earlier writings, I used this model upon pair production/annihilation.  BTW, my unquantum effect was measured with annihilation radiation in my lab.  For light, CTF or aether is ok with me, but I would make a distinction between the field of light and matter.  I realize many in this forum see matter made of light.  It is as if everything is made the way the light clock works.  However, it seems too confusing to call it photons or light in there.  There is nothing about light to see how it could easily whirl upon itself to hold together.   Psi goes c but it is not light.
[ER: “I would make a distinction between the field of light and matter.”
CR: No, I want a common origin for everything - a Unified Field Theory, if at all possible. No harm in trying. We have already lost a couple of  thousand years in Western Physics thinking by separating the origins of light and matter.  My motivation is to construct a model for the emergence of the observable Cosmic Elephant out of the same complex “Ether” or the ‘Complex Tension Field”; which needs a lot of pondering and developing ]
ER: “There is nothing about light to see how it could easily whirl upon itself to hold together.   Psi goes c but it is not light.”
CR: I whole heartedly agree that it is not a “Photon” as it is understood today. My explanation is that the localized stability of this extremely high energy oscillation of the CTF comes from the “resonance”, the in-phase closed loop oscillation. I am deriving this conclusion from the tendency of the CTF to exert sustained push of the liner excitation (EM waves) at the velocity of c. So, when the self-looped oscillation (not “photon”) is generated, the CTF perceives that it is, just like for linear EM waves, it is perpetually pushing away the “unwanted” perturbation energy locally disturbing its quiescent state. Yet, it is now a localized “particle-like” oscillation with inertial properties, requiring various secondary gradients in the CTF, generated around various of its oscillations and yield to translational displacements. CTF wants to preserve its energetic quiescent state, just like the macro material based tension fields. Of course, these are my imaginative modeling of the observable Cosmic Elephant. Has it succeeded in capturing the Ontological Reality independent of human subjectivity? I do not know.
Chandra.
 ER:  Thank you again for inviting my comments.


From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 5:55 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: RE: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

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<mailto: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 90th 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 any 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-mail wolf 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 at Wolf 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 at phys 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://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<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 at phys 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 Wolf 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 at phys 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170805/38e5335a/attachment.htm>