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

Mon Aug 7 06:29:13 PDT 2017

Sorry Chandra but, logic or not, single photon interference is an almost universally agreed experimental fact, as is the (more stringent) single electron interference.

Regards, JW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:58 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Chip:
Since Einstein’s photoelectric equation basically conforms to measurements; I have attempted to show that it is also congruent with “Filling the QM cup” model, as per semi-classical approach for all light-matter interactions.
     See slide #20 in the first attachment. Or, go to my web for papers and download my Colloquium given at the Institute of Optics, Rochester: http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/
    It may take a couple of days for Michael to upload this memory-heavy presentation with the video clips for MZ-interferometry that makes the logic of “single photon interference” logically impossible. Besides, by virtue of the English meaning of the word “Interference” and its mathematical representation as sum of two or more waves with different phases; the proposal for “single photon interference” is a self-contradictory “Magical Thinking”. If indivisible photons and electrons are stable particles, then they cannot suddenly become multi-valued and carry multiple phases, the moment some human being sets up an interferometer to interrogate their “psychotic” behavior!!! The experiment without the videos are in the second attachment.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:22 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Hi Chandra

Yes. Please send the derivation for multi-wave packet stimulation for practical photo electric effect.  I am quite interested.

Recently I have been able to make good progress, and have written draft papers on inertial and gravitational mass, the electron, the fabric of space, and electric charge.  I am now working on the nature of light.

Using a fresh approach to the concept that space is a tension field has yielded many productive and exciting (for me) results.

I am also drafting a response to your requests for how this forum has been of benefit to my research.  Just wanted to thank you for the vision and drive to establish such a forum.  Will send that response soon.  Hope everyone will do the same.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2017 7:11 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

Chip:
My recent and latest response to Albrecht gives another articulation of my same old views about EM wave packets emitted by radio antenna, atoms and nuclei. For the latter two, the same entity can participate both as emitting or absorbing antenna; but only momentarily as they undergo level transitions. For radio, the emitters and receivers have to be designed separately and they are not inherently quantized.

All EM wave packets propagate diffractively spreading and hence they all have to be divisible, whether radio wave or gamma wave. However, gamma wave being extremely low diffracting, it could be possible that a frequency-resonant nucleus can undergo the necessary transition, via absorption of the one single frequency-resonant gamma wave packet; provided the distance between the emitter (source) and absorber is reasonably small.

Whereas, for visible light photoelectric effect, it would be practically impossible for a single visible wave packet to trigger a photo electron transition as they are highly diffractive. I have the necessary derivation for multi-wave packet stimulation for practical photo electric effect. If anybody is interested, I will be happy to send it.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 11:48 AM
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

Dear Albrecht and Chandra

If you don’t mind I would like to join this discussion on the nature of light.

This has been an area of study for me, also for decades, as Chandra has mentioned.

But still, it is not so easy to resolve this issue.

In this discussion group, many have made good points on both sides of this discussion.

The best analysis I have been able to make of the experimental data so far, seems to indicate that light often acts like particles when reacting with particles, and acts like waves when propagating through space.

As Chandra has pointed out, it is possible that light is a wave and the quantization we notice is induced by the particles (dipoles made of charges from particles).

The underlying cause for action is what I feel we have to look for.  If energy behaves in a specific manner when confined within a particle, it is due to the properties of space. Which is to say that the rules which govern the quantization of energy in particles are rules imposed by the properties of space. So if those rules exist in space in order to cause particles of mass, it would follow that some of the same rules (since these rules are part of space) might govern the way energy behaves in light.

As we analyze the available data E=hv becomes evident. This is a set of boundary conditions imposed on the behavior of energy in space. But E=hv applies to the energy in light. The energy in particles is better characterized by E=hv/2. And the frequency v in particles of mass is 2v the frequency in light.

It occurs to me that the NIW property which Chandra has rediscovered could be due to the simple preservation of momentum, or it could be due to the point-like localization of the “energy” at the origin of what we call a photon.

So, I am still trying to sort all this out. But given the information which is known, it currently feels to me that we should consider that space imposes a set of rules on the behavior of energy in space.

If we follow the concept that space is a tension field, then we must also realize that in that model, energy must PULL on space, in order for us to sense that E=hv. This is specifically why we would see that more energetic particles are smaller particles. And following that premise to a logical conclusion, light would almost have to be a quantized wave packet.

I have found remarkable agreement between Albrecht’s math and my research, but I have come to these equations using a totally different approach, and I do not think the two massless particle explanation for the electron is the most instructive way to envision this particle.

My view is more similar to Chandra’s view that space is a tension field, and particles are made of energy (which is pulling on this tension field, causing displacements,) which propagate at the speed of light.  But that premise seems to me to require that the reaction of space to energy sets up oscillatory boundary conditions, making more energetic particles smaller, and quantizing all transverse propagation of energy in space.  This means that I currently feel that photons exist. But I am willing to entertain alternate suggestions.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 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: Let me start by quoting your concluding statement:

“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.”

The implied meaning to me is that I have proposed a model that is totally irreconcilable to your model of the universe. My book, “Causal Physics: Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves” CRC, 2014) has given better explanations for most of the optical phenomena based upon this re-discovered NIW-property of all waves; which I have also summarized many times in this forum. See the last paragraph to appreciate why my mental logic was forced to accept the “Complex Tension Field” holds 100% of the cosmic energy. I understand that it is a radical departure from the prevailing “successful” theories. However, it makes a lot of mutually congruent sense even for some cosmological phenomena.

Differences in our opinions are OK. That is the purpose of this forum. Further, I would not dare to claim that my model of the universe is THE correct one; or even the best one for the present! I am open to enriching my thinking by learning from other models. This is the key reason why I have been investing decades of my time to re-energize the enquiring minds of many through (i) organizing special publications, (ii) special conferences and this (iii) web-based open forum. Because, I, alone, simply cannot solve the culturally and historically imposed tendency of believing what appears to be currently working knowledge, as the final knowledge. Presently, this is happening in all spheres of human theories (knowledge), whether meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and Social Engineering (politics, economics, religions, etc.).

I also believe that we are all “blind people”, modeling the Cosmic Elephant based on our individual perceptions and self-congruent logical intelligence. We now need to keep working to develop some “logical connectivity” to bring out some form of “conceptual continuity” between our different and imagined descriptions of the Cosmic Elephant. Finding working logics behind persistent, but logical evolution, in nature cannot be resolved by democratic consensus. Further, we are in a position to declare our current understanding as the final laws of nature. The working rules in nature has been set many billions of years before our modern Gurus started defining the creator of the universe as various forms of gods. None of our major messiahs have ever alerted us that we must develop the technology to travel to planets in distant stars before the earth is vaporized due to the eventual arrival of Solar Warming due to its evolution into a Red Giant! Fortunately, some of our foresighted engineers have already started to develop the early experimental steps towards that vision.

However much you may dislike “philosophy” (methodology of thinking, or epistemology); it is the key platform where we can  mingle our ideas to keep generating something better and better and better. That has been the entire history of human evolution. Except, human species have now become too self-centered and too arrogant to care for the biosphere. We are now virtually a pest in the biosphere. Scientific epistemology that is totally disconnected from our sustainability would be, eventually, a path to our own extinction. Our epistemology must be grounded to sustainability for our own collective wellbeing. All the accomplishments, from the ancient times, then from Galileo, Newton, then from Einstein, Heisenberg, and then, all the way to recent times, would not mean an iota to our grand-grand-grand kids if the Global warming takes a decisive irreversible slide! None other than Einstein pronounced in 1947:

“Science without epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all — primitive and muddled. ”

This is why I have started promoting the overarching concept, “The Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. The “Process” is connected to engineering (practical) thinking. It is not some grandiose and complex approach like mathematics behind the “String Theory”, which only a limited number of people with mathematically inclined brains can understand and participate after dedicating at least a decade of their professional lives.

The recognition of the importance of “Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” is trivially simple. What has been the basic urge common to all species, from bacteria to humans? (i) Keep striving to do better than our current best and (ii) live forever pragmatically through our progenies. For knowledgeable humans, it means to assure the sustainability of our biosphere that collectively nurtures mutually dependent all lives.

Finally, I need to underscore the origin of my concept of Complex Tension Field (CTF). This was necessary to accommodate (i) constant velocity of light in every part of the universe and (ii) Optical Doppler Shifted spectra from atoms in any star in any galaxy, including our Sun. All atoms, whether in earth lab or in a distant star corona, are experiencing the same stationary CTF. But, the trigger point to conceive CTF came from my re-discovery of the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW); which is already built into our current math. However, the inertia of our cultural tendency is to continue believing in non-causal postulate of wave-particle duality from the erroneous assumption that Superposition Principle is an observable phenomenon. It is not. The observable phenomenon is the causal and measurable Superposition Effect reported through physical transformation in detectors. My book, “Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, is the result of some 50 years of wide variety of optical experiments. By my own philosophy, it is definitely not infallible. However, it would be hard to neglect, at least in the field of optical sciences. Please, go to the web site to down load my recent Summer School course summarizing my book.

http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

It summarizes the breadth of my book as applied to optical sciences. [Indian paperback is already published. I am now working on a Chinese edition and then convert to Senior level optics text.

Sorry, Albrecht, for such a long reply.

Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Albrecht Giese
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 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,

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<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>

_______________________________________________

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/20170807/40e92da8/attachment.htm>