[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sat Aug 5 12:49:35 PDT 2017
Wolf,
so you did not receive my mail as of July 6? I shall resend it to you,
but presently I am not at home and do not have it at hand. I shall send
it middle of next week. But anyway if you look how a synchrotron works
you will easily see that it can only function if the speed of light is
correctly entered into the switching sequence of the accelerating
fields. So, this is a permanent test for the speed of light c and to the
behaviour close to c and as a consequence it is a test for the increase
of the mass of particles at high speed.
So it is also a proof (i.e. a negative one) regarding the equations
which you repeat again in your mail below.
Albrecht
Am Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:26:11 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer
<wolf at nascentinc.com>:
>
> 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 mc^2 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(1 + 2x/c_0 ^2
> -v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) = ~ m_0 c_0 ^2 + mx - (1/2)v^2 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 mc_0 ^2 = -mMuG/Ru in other words
> mc_0 ^2 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 v^4 /c^4 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 v^4 /c^4 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 = m_0 c_0 *(1/(c_0 ^2 + 2x - v^2 )^1/2 ) = m_0 c_0 *(1/(V-T)^1/2
> ) = m_0 c_0 *(1/(L)^1/2 )
>
> and multipying by c_0
> gives mcc_0 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(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-mailwolf 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 = c_0 *(1/(1-v^2 /c^2
>>> )^1/2 ) which the gives c^2 = c_0 ^2 +v^2 .
>>>
>>> In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the particle and takes
>>> the small velocity approximation one gets mc^2 = mc_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2
>>> /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ) =~ mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2
>>>
>>> I believe the point I was trying to make is that the classic
>>> Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc_0 ^2 +1/2 mv^2 if mc_0 ^2 =
>>> -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 mc^2 = m_0 c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 )
>>> then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m_0 or c_0 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-mailwolf 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:
>>>> c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^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 ( +2mm_l
>>>>> G/r -2mc^2 - mv^2 )^-1/2 =^~ ^1/2 mv^2 + mc^2 -mm_l G/r
>>>>>
>>>>> So that simply by recognizing that mc^2 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 c^2 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 c_0 ^2 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-mailwolf 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-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
>>>>>>> <a href="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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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 atphys 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 atWolf 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 atphys 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 atWolf 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>
>
---
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/20170805/91b302c4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list