[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Mon Aug 7 07:04:01 PDT 2017
Hi John, and Chandra
As John has pointed out, the electron behaves in the same manner as light in
the double slit experiment. This is one of the most convincing arguments
for me, that light is also quantized.
However I feel that calling this behavior "interference" in the classical
wave sense, is an oversimplification of what is actually occurring in these
experiments.
It seems to me that these quantized, coherent, oscillatory energy packets
produce fields, and that these fields in space, travel with the particle and
pass through the apparatus and interact with the apparatus, in turn
producing forces on the electron or photon, guiding its path.
But for this to work in simulation, like it does in experiment, these fields
propagate much faster than light, from the origin particle, into space.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 8:29 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
Subject: Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
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.natureoflightandparticl
es.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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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
<mailto: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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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.natureoflightan
dparticles.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_conscio
us_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22
<https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_consci
ous_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_
weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image>
&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_wee
k_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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virenfrei.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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/20170807/90e84cef/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list