[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Thu Aug 10 11:58:59 PDT 2017
Dear Chip,
thank you for careful reading. But your objections are in my view the
result of specific preconditions in your view which are not necessary. I
shall respond within your text.
Am 08.08.2017 um 19:53 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful response.
>
> A few items occur to me while reading your message.
>
> Exchange particles are a difficult concept, especially if space is
> empty. For if space is empty then there is no causal mechanism which
> can tell a charged particle that another charge is in its vicinity.
> Therefore how do they know to “exchange photons” if space is
> completely empty? We know that a charged particle at rest is NOT
> continually radiating photons. We could imagine that it is continually
> radiating and absorbing photons to maintain its energy level, but then
> we would be able to detect such radiation, and we do not detect any
> such radiation from a charged particle at rest.
>
The concept of exchange particles which I know (and so far have borrowed
from QM) assumes that a charge is permanently radiating exchange
particles to all directions. As they are understood to be particles they
can fly through empty space without any problem. And you are right that
the radiation of exchange particles is a permanent violation of the
conservation of energy. So, I think that conservation of energy is not a
basic law of nature but a consequence of the set up of particles. For
example, my particle model is built in a way that it conserves energy,
But that is, as I said, a consequence of the configuration, not at all a
general law. And further, as a consequence there cannot be energy by
itself somewhere in space but energy is a property of an object. There
must be objects so that we have energy.
>
> Another problem with “exchange particles”, specifically photons as
> exchange particles for electric charge, is the phase continuity
> problem. The idea, as I understand it, is that the frequency and phase
> of the exchange photon determines whether it pushes or pulls on the
> affected particle. But charge is constant and very predictable at any
> given distance, while phase would change with distance. We simply do
> not see the kind of behavior in electric charge we would see if it
> were mediated by photons. I have tried to simulate how it is that
> photons could provide the force we sense as electric charge, at any
> distance, without anomaly, and there just does not seem to be any way
> that can work without invoking some magical and unseen, anti-causal,
> mechanism.
>
You address an important problem here: the exchange particle emitted by
a positive charge must be different from an exchange particle emitted by
a negative charge. I have asked several theoreticians of main stream
physics just this question. The result was a bit funny. Some of them
were confused and did not know how to answer, some said that there is
never only one exchange particle but always a collection of them and the
configuration within this collection tell the other charge whether they
come form a positive or a negative one. - I for myself do not think that
this is a workable mechanism. But I like better the idea that these so
called photons are not the same ones as the normal photons carrying
energy, but they are another kind of particle. - I agree that main
stream is propagating an inconsistent model here.
>
> It is also quite interesting to me that you hold Lorentzian relativity
> to be more correct than Special relativity, but reject the foundation
> upon which Lorentz formulated his relativity. His concept, as best I
> can determine from historical accounts, was that space was a medium,
> and that the Pythagorean relationships he formulated were due to the
> fixed speed of light and energy propagation in the medium. I also
> believe that Lorentzian relativity is more accurate than Special
> relativity, but I believe that it is more accurate due to a clear
> cause and effect, which is only present if space is a medium.
>
Lorentz did not understand space as a medium. There was an interesting
and detailed discussion between Einstein and Lorentz about the necessity
of an ether. Einstein did not want an ether as we know, but Lorentz
found it necessary to explain acceleration and rotation (which is GRT).
And in this discussion it became very clear that Lorentz did not want
anything more than an absolute frame of reference. Einstein's argument
was that the equivalence of gravity and acceleration makes this
unnecessary; which I find difficult logic. - The basic difference
between the concept of Einstein and the one of Lorentz regarding SRT are
two points: Einstein says that space contracts at motion, Lorentz says
that fields contract at motion. The measurable consequences of both are
the same. For dilation Einstein says that time slows down whereas
Lorentz says that oscillations slow down; again there is no difference
regarding measurements. - I like the Lorentzian way because it means
physics whereas Einstein's way means mathematical abstractions.
>
>
> Yes. Gravity is different than the other forces. And it is a warping
> of the fabric of space as Einstein imagined with General Relativity.
> The force of gravity is not generated by the gravitational “field”,
> for the gravitational “field” is simply a gradient in space which
> causes refraction of energy propagating through the gradient. The
> force we feel from that refraction is actually created by the momentum
> of the energy circulating within fermionic particles. So the force is
> related to the energy content (mass) of the object which is in the
> refracting field. In this way, the momentum of the energy circulating
> within the particle causes both inertial mass and gravitational mass.
> So there is a causal mechanism, which makes gravitational and inertial
> mass appear equivalent, in a specific manner.
>
What is a "gradient of space"? Space is something which we cannot
measure physically, so it is merely a mathematical concept. The
reduction of c in a gravitational field, so in the vicinity of an
object, is clearly measurable (even though not explained by saying
this). But if we assume that forces are mediated by exchange particles,
it is easily understandable that the interaction of any kind of exchange
particles disturbs the path of a light-like particle and so reduces its
speed. More is not necessary. - You say: "The momentum of the energy
circulation within the particle causes both inertial mass and
gravitational mass". To my understanding momentum does not cause
inertial mass but is identical to inertial mass, just understood in a
different context. And what is gravitational mass? Which mechanism
causes a mass to be attracted by another mass? I have never heart an
argument why this should be. The reduction of c by exchange particles is
a possible mechanism and so serves as an argument.
And the good point in my view of gravity is that this concept is
extremely easier to handle. I have as a demonstration listed (from a
textbook) the deduction of the Schwarzschild solution via Einstein. It
is a sequence of > 80 equations which need Riemannian geometry (i.e. a
curved 4-dim. space) whereas the reduction of the Schwarzschild solution
by the relativity of Lorentz and the use of refraction needs about a
dozen equations of school mathematics (so Euclidean geometry) and it
yields the same result. Isn't this a good argument?
>
> Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent discussion.
> While we do not agree on certain aspects, the exchanges are definitely
> quite helpful to me. I appreciate that.
>
> Chip
>
It is nice to have this discussion with you. Thanks
Albrecht
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 2:15 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> thank you for your response. - I think I have to give some more
> comments about my model.
>
> I am using the concept of exchange particles (the only idea I have
> borrowed from QM) which is not to be confused with virtual particles.
> I also believe that virtual particles do not exist. One well known
> problem with them is the cosmological "vacuum catastrophe", which
> means the difference between the theoretical energy of all virtual
> particles summed up and the real energy in the universe, which means a
> conflicting factor of 120 orders of magnitude. This assumption, also
> called "vacuum polarization", was invented to explain the Landé factor
> of the electron. In my model this Landé factor can be classically
> explained.
>
> Exchange particles on the other hand are assumed to mediate forces. In
> case of the electric force the photon is assumed to be the exchange
> particle, which is (in this case) not a virtual particle.
>
> How do you unify gravity and the electric force? This was attempted by
> many, also by Einstein who did not succeed with this idea. A general
> counterargument is the fact that gravity is so different from the
> other "three" forces that I think it is a completely different
> phenomenon, not even a force.
>
> My approach to gravity is so a completely different one. We know from
> measurements (and also from Einstein's thoughts) that the speed of
> light is reduced in a gravitational field. (A formula for it follows
> from Einstein's GRT, but can also be deduced classically, what my
> model does.) If accordingly a light-like particle moves in a
> gravitational field, then its path is classically refracted towards
> the gravitational source. This - applied to the internal oscillations
> of a particle - causes the particle to move towards the gravitational
> source by a constant acceleration. This process fully explains
> gravitation, the classical one (as of Newton) as well as the
> relativistic one (as of Einstein).
>
> Regarding space as pure emptiness, you ask the question: "If we assume
> space is completely empty then it does become quite difficult to
> explain the cause for relationships between space and time, and the
> cause for a fixed velocity of light." In my understanding this is not
> a problem. Because if we follow the relativity of Lorentz rather
> Einstein, there does not exist a special relationship between space
> and time. And the good thing about the Lorentzian relativity is that
> it is mathematically much simpler than Einstein's, more related to
> physics, and even though has fundamentally the same results as with
> Einstein. Space is then fully described by Euclidean geometry.
>
> And regarding the speed of light we can change the statement "nothing
> can move faster than c" to a more radical one: "all objects at the
> lowest level, i.e. basic particles and exchange particles, /only move
> at c/; there is no other speed". Any objects moving at a different
> speed than c are not particles but configurations of particles, which
> of course can move at any speed. And why is this speed c constant?
> Because if mass-less objects moving at c interact, it is on the lowest
> level always an elastic interaction. Such interaction will change the
> direction of a motion, but never the speed of a motion. So if we now
> assume that during the Big Bang, in this very dense situation, all
> objects have taken the same speed, this speed has normally no reason
> to change any more later.
>
> I think that one of the strongest reasons that physics did not
> progress during the last century is the assumption that space has
> certain properties rather than being empty. Particularly Einstein's
> assumptions about space and time have hampered progress in physics. It
> seems to me like a religion as it makes the understanding more complex
> without any necessity. Any comparison of the relativity of Einstein
> with the approach of Lorentz shows this very clearly.
>
> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 06.08.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> I really appreciate your response. You give detailed yet concise
> explanations and is very helpful.
>
> It is quite amazing to me that our two completely different
> approaches and perceptions resolves to mathematics which agree
> with such accuracy and consistency.
>
> I have read much of your work, and find it mentally stimulating.
>
> However, with the approach I have used, I am able to do all the
> things you have mentioned as well. But I am also able to
> demonstrate quantized electric charge without resorting to
> “virtual particles” to do so. In fact I do not think such
> particles exist. I have also been able, recently, to unify the
> force of electric charge with gravity, and to show specific cause
> for inertial and gravitational mass equivalence. We have both
> found that the strong force exists in all particles, and that
> force is unified with the other forces as well. Using this
> approach there is no reason to try to explain how light
> mysteriously only propagates forward at c. It is not a mystery
> using this approach. If we assume space is completely empty then
> it does become quite difficult to explain the cause for
> relationships between space and time, and the cause for a fixed
> velocity of light.
>
> So in my view, particles are not the most fundamental, but rather
> space and energy are fundamental.
>
> There are problems with conventional QM which can be removed using
> such an approach.
>
> For a time in our recent scientific history many physicists felt
> that space was empty. This of course occurred after the
> introduction of Special Relativity. But later Einstein himself
> reversed his view on this topic, and stated that with General
> Relativity space is warped by gravity. One cannot warp what does
> not exist. But by the time General Relativity was introduced, the
> logical damage had already been done to the then developing QM
> theories. So we are stuck with mysterious “virtual particles” to
> explain force at a distance, when space itself is actually the
> most theoretically economical explanation.
>
> So, I agree, that if you are going to start with the assumption
> that space is nothing, empty, then your approach is about the best
> one can do.
>
> But it is not requisite that we constrain our thinking just
> because many others have a particular concept.
>
> I feel one of the obstacles which has prevented our further
> progress, and caused physics to become more stagnant in the last
> century, is this concept that space is empty. For using that
> approach, leads to the unexplainable, or to “magical”
> explanations, instead of sound logical cause and effect.
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
> introspection
>
> Dear Chip,
>
> thank you for your detailed information. My approach is indeed a
> bit different and I would like to explain where and why.
>
> You refer a lot of the phenomena to properties of space. That is
> something I do not. I have just finished reading a book which
> explains, in which way Einstein during his whole life has
> attempted to explain physical phenomena as properties of the
> space. He even tried to develop a universal field theory (a GTE)
> in this way. He did not have success. - I try to do the opposite,
> so to develop physical models under the assumption that space is
> nothing than emptiness. One specific physical property which is
> normally related to space, the speed of light, is in my view the
> speed of all (massless) exchange particles which permanently move
> at the speed of light. Why are they doing it? I have a quite
> simple model for this, but even then it is too extensive to
> present it now at this place.
>
> Most of the facts which you have addressed in the following are
> explained by my (2-particle) model.
>
> At first the unresolved question why an electron (which is assumed
> to be smaller than 10^-18 m) can have a magnetic moment and a spin
> having the known values: QM says merely that this cannot be
> explained by visualisation, as it is a QM topic. So, not
> explained. My model explains it quantitatively.
>
> Further points:
>
> o particle-wave: the particle has an alternating field around,
> which fulfils the requirements in this question
>
> o the mass of any lepton and any quark is correctly given by the
> size of the particle. There is only one parameter free for the
> corresponding formula, which is h*c (so nothing new)
>
> o the magnetic moment and the spin of all leptons and all quarks
> is also quantitatively explained by this model, no further free
> parameters needed
>
> o the relation /E=hv / follows from this model for leptons, for
> quarks, and surprisingly also for photons. So it is according to
> my model not a property of the space but of the model. This can be
> another indication that the photon is a particle
>
> o the relativistic dilation follows immediately from this model,
> no further free parameters needed
>
> o the relativistic increase of mass at motion follows directly
> from this model, no further free parameters needed
>
> o the relativistic equation /E=mc^2 / follows from the model, no
> further free parameters needed
>
> o the dynamical mass of the photon follows from the model even
> though not all properties of the photon are explained by the
> model. But also the relation /E=hv/ follows formally also for the
> photon.
>
> o energy conservation is in my view not a general property of the
> physical world (as it is violated in the case of exchange
> particles) but also this is a consequence of the set up of a
> particle as described by this model. So the saying that something
> is a "consequence of energy in space" is not reflected by the
> physical reality
>
> I think that it is a reasonable requirement to judge physical
> models by asking for _quantitative_ results of a model. During my
> time working on models and participating in the according
> conferences I have seen so many elegant looking models that I did
> not find a better criterion for looking deeper into a model than
> looking for results, which can be compared to measurements.
>
> As an introduction I refer again to my web site
> www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass> .
>
> This was hopefully not too confusing (?)!
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 04.08.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> 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 90^th birthday.
>
> Chandra.
>
> */PS: /**/Regarding Philosophy:/*In my viewpoint, the
> */gravest mistake/* of the physics community for
> several hundred years has been to consider
> self-introspection of our individual thinking logic as
> unnecessary philosophy. Erroneous assumption behind
> that is to think that our neural network is a
> perfectly objective organ; rather than a generic
> “hallucinating” organ to assure our successful
> biological evolution. It is high time that physicists,
> as a community, start appreciating this limiting modes
> of thinking logic have been holding us back. This is
> why I have become a “broken record” to repeatedly keep
> on “playing” the same ancient story of five
> collaborating blind men modeling an elephant. Their
> diverse “objective” observations do not automatically
> blend in to a logically self-consistent living animal.
> Only when they impose the over-arching condition that
> it is a living animal, their iterative attempts to
> bring SOME conceptual continuity between the diverse
> “objective” observations; their model starts to appear
> as “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant, that we are
> trying to model, is a lot more complex system. We are
> not yet in a position to declare a*/ny of our
> component theories /*as a final theory! Fortunately,
> reproducible experimental validations of many
> mathematical theories imply that the laws of nature
> function causally. Sadly, Copenhagen Interpretation
> insists on telling nature that she ought to behave
> non-causally at the microscopic level. As if, a macro
> */causal universe/* can emerge out of */non-causal
> micro universe/*!
>
> ==================================================
>
> On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Chandra,
>
> my intention this time was to avoid a too
> philosophical discussion, interesting as it may
> be, and to avoid the risk to extend it towards
> infinity. So, this time I only intended to discuss
> a specific point.
>
> Therefore the main point of my mail: How do you
> explain */the process going on in my
> experiment/*without assuming the photon as a
> particle? (Details again below.)
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Thanks for your critical questions. I will try
> to answer to the extent I am capable of. They
> are within your email text below.
>
> However, I am of the general opinion that
> Physics has advanced enough to give us the
> confidence that generally speaking, we have
> been heading in the right direction – the laws
> of natural evolution are universally causal in
> action and are independent of the existence or
> non-existence of any particular species,
> including human species.
>
> History has also demonstrated (Kuhn’s
> Structure of Scientific revolutions) that all
> working theories eventually yield to newer
> theories based upon constructing better
> fundamental postulates using better and
> broad-based precision data. So, this century
> is destined to enhance all the foundational
> postulates behind most working theories and
> integrate them into a better theory with much
> less “hotchpotch” postulates like “wave
> particle-duality”, “entanglement”, “action at
> a distance”, etc., etc. Our community should
> agree and stop the time-wasting philosophical
> debates like, “Whether the moon EXISTS when I
> am not looking for it!” Would you waste your
> time writing a counter poem, if I write, “The
> moon is a dusty ball of Swiss cheese”?
>
> */In summary, leveraging the evolutionary
> power of self-introspection, human observers
> will have to learn to CONSCIOUSLY direct
> further evolution of their own mind out of its
> current trap of biologically evolved neural
> logics towards pure logic of dispassionate
> observers who do not influence the outcome of
> experimental observations!/* Let us not waste
> any more of our valuable time reading and
> re-reading the inconclusive Bohr-Einstein
> debates. We are not smarter than them; but we
> have a lot more observational data to
> structure our logical thinking than they had
> access to during their life time. So, lets
> respectfully jump up on the concept-shoulders
> of these giants, a la Newton, and try to
> increase our Knowledge Horizon. Bowing down
> our head at their feet will only reduce our
> Knowledge Horizon.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM
> *To:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a
> deeper path to introspection
>
> Chandra,
>
> you have written here a lot of good and true
> considerations; with most of them I can agree.
> However two comments from my view:
>
> 1.) The speed of light:
> The speed of light when /measured in vacuum
> /shows always a constant value. Einstein has
> taken this result as a fact in so far that the
> real speed of light is constant. [Sorry there
> are no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth.
> Even a few atoms per 100-Lamda-cubed volume
> defines an effective refractive index for
> light in that volume. The outer space is a bit
> more rarer.]
>
> I forgot to say: Measurement of c outside a
> gravitational field. - Of course this and the
> vacuum is nowhere perfectly available, but we come
> so close to it that we have sufficiently good
> results. In the gravitational field on the earth
> the speed of light is reduced by round about a
> portion of about 10^-6 . And in the DESY
> synchrotron there was a vacuum good enough so that
> c was only reduced by a portion of about 10^-15 .
> I think that this comes close enough to the ideal
> conditions so that we can draw conclusions from
> it. And the equations describing this can be
> proven by a sufficient precision.
>
>
>
>
> However if we follow the Lorentzian
> interpretation of relativity then only the
> /measured /c is constant. It looks constant
> because, if the measurement equipment is in
> motion, the instruments change their
> indications so that the result shows the known
> constant value. - I personally follow the
> Lorentzian relativity because in this version
> the relativistic phenomena can be deduced from
> known physical behaviour.[I am more
> comfortable with Lorentzian logics than
> Einsteinian. However, I do not consider this
> thinking will remain intact as our
> understanding evolves further. ]
>
> Which kind of changes do you expect?
>
>
>
>
> So, it is true physics.[Sorry, I do not
> believe that we will ever have access to a
> final (“true”) physics theory! We will always
> have to keep on iterating the postulates and
> the corresponding theories to make them evolve
> as our mind evolves out of
> biological-survival-logics towards
> impartial-observer-logics.]
>
> Perhaps it was bad wording from my side. -
> Whereas I understand Einstein's relativity as a
> mathematical system, the Lorentzian is intended to
> describe physics. That was meant.
>
>
>
>
> There is a different understanding of what
> Wolf thinks. He has in the preceding
> discussion here given an equation, according
> to which the speed of light can go up to
> infinity. This is to my knowledge in conflict
> with any measurement.[I agree with you. All
> equations for propagating wave tell us that
> the speed is determined by the intrinsic
> physical tension properties of the
> corresponding mother “field”. I have not found
> acceptable logic to support infinite speed for
> propagating waves.]
>
> 2) The quantisation of light:
> This was also discussed repeatedly here in
> these mails. And I have (also) repeatedly
> referred to my */PhD experiment, which was
> Compton scattering at protons./*[There are
> number of papers that explain Compton Effect
> using semi classical theory, using X-rays as
> classical wave packets. De Broglie got his
> Nobel based on his short PhD thesis proposing
> “Pilot Wave” for electron diffraction
> phenomenon along with “Lambda= “h/p”. I
> happened to have proposed particles as
> localized harmonic oscillators with
> characteristic “Kinetic Frequency”, rather
> than wavelength (See Ch.11 of my “Causal
> Physics” book). This explains particle
> diffraction without the need of “wave particle
> duality”. I have separately published paper
> modeling, using spectrometric data, that QM
> predicted photon is a transient photon at the
> moment of emission with energy “hv”. Then it
> quickly evolves into a quasi-exponential wave
> packet with a carrier frequency “v”. This
> bridges the gap between the QM predictions and
> all the successes of the classical HF integral. ]
>
> I am sorry that I mentioned that this experiment
> was intended to check a specific property of the
> Compton effect. Because this fact is of no
> relevance for our discussion here. The relevant
> point is that an electron of a defined energy was
> converted into something which we call a "photon".
> And after about 10 meters flight through the air
> with a negligible deflection it was reconverted
> into an electron-positron pair, which then
> represented the energy of the original electron.
> And this was done for different energies of this
> original electron. - My question is how this
> process can be explained without the assumption
> that the photon did have a quantized amount of
> energy, which means it to be a particle.
>
> Regarding the particle wave question I have
> presented every time at our SPIE meeting in San
> Diego a particle model which is in fact a specific
> realization of de Broglie's pilot wave idea. I did
> not develop the model for this purpose but to
> explain SRT, gravity and the fact of inertial
> mass. The result was then that is also fulfils the
> idea of de Broglie. It explains the process of
> diffraction and the relation between frequency and
> energy. - And last time in San Diego I have also
> explained that it explains - with some
> restrictions - the photon.
>
>
>
>
> An electron of defined energy was converted
> into a photon. The photon was scattered at a
> proton at extreme small angles (so almost no
> influence) and then re-converted into an
> electron-positron pair. This pair was measured
> and it reproduced quite exactly (by better
> than 2 percent) the energy of the originals
> electron. This was repeated for electrons of
> different energies. - I do not see any
> explanation for this process without the
> assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a
> quantum) of a well defined energy, not a light
> wave. [Albrecht, with my limited brain-time, I
> do not understand , nor can I dare to explain
> away everything. But, remember, that
> literally, millions of optical engineers for
> two centuries, have been using
> Huygens-Fresnel’s classical diffraction
> integral to explain many dozens of optical
> phenomena and to design and construct
> innumerable optical instruments
> (spectroscopes, microscopes, telescopes
> (including grazing angle X-ray telescope),
> etc. QM has never succeeded in giving us any
> simple integral equivalent to HF-integral.
> That is why all these millions of optical
> scientists and engineers give only “lip
> service” to the photon concept and happily and
> successfully keep on using the HF integral! My
> prediction is that this will remain so for
> quite a while into the future.
>
> I again refer to my particle model as said above.
> It explains all the known optical phenomena.
>
>
>
>
> Let us recall that neither Newtonian, nor
> Einsteinian Gravity can predict the measured
> distribution of velocities of stars against
> the radial distance in hundreds of galaxies;
> even though they are excellent within our
> solar system. However, Huygens postulate
> (Newton’s contemporary) of wave propagation
> model of leveraging some tension field still
> lives-on remarkably well. This significance
> should be noted by particle physicists!].
>
> I do not see what in detail is not postulated
> regarding the stars observed. My model also
> explains phenomena like Dark Matter and Dark
> Energy if you mean this. And my model of gravity
> (which is an extension of the Lorentzian
> relativity to GRT) is since 13 years in the
> internet, and since 12 years it is uninterruptedly
> the no. one regarding the explanation of
> gravitation (if looking for "The Origin of
> Gravity" by Google). Maybe worth to read it.
>
>
>
>
> How does this fit into your understanding?
>
> Best wishes
> Albrecht
>
> PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?
>
> Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra:
>
> Wolf:
>
> You have said it well:
>
> /“Concentrating on finding the mechanisms
> of connection between the Hallucination
> and the reality is my approach. I think
> the constant speed of light assumption is
> one of the first pillars that must fall.
> If there is such a constant it should in
> my opinion be interpreted as the speed of
> Now…”. /
>
> Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally
> flawed postulate by the theoretician
> Einstein, so fond of “Gedanken
> Experiments”. Unfortunately, one can cook
> up wide varieties of logically
> self-consistent mathematical theories and
> then match them up with “Gedanken”
> experiments! We know that in the real
> world, we know that the velocity of light
> is dictated by both the medium and the
> velocity of the medium. Apparently,
> Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of riding
> the crest of a light wave inspired him to
> construct SRT and sold all the
> mathematical physicists that nature if
> 4-diemsional. Out of the “Messiah
> Complex”, we now believe that the universe
> could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, ….
> dimensional system where many of the
> dimensions are “folded in” !!!! By the
> way, running time is not a measurable
> physical parameter. We can contract or
> dilate frequency of diverse oscillators,
> using proper physical influence, not the
> running time. Frequency of oscillators
> help us measure a period (or time interval).
>
> Wise human thinkers have recognized this
> “Hallucination” problem from ancient
> times, which are obvious (i) from Asian
> perspective of how five blinds can
> collaborate to construct a reasonable
> model of the Cosmic Elephant and then keep
> on iterating the model ad infinitum, or
> (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of
> external objects projected inside a cave
> wall”. Unfortunately, we become “groupies”
> of our contemporary “messiahs” to survive
> economically and feel “belonging to the
> sociaety”. The result is the current sad
> state of moribund physics thinking.
> Fortunately, many people have started
> challenging this moribund status quo with
> papers, books, and web forums.
>
> So, I see well-recognizable renaissance in
> physics coming within a few decades! Yes,
> it will take time. Einstein’s “indivisible
> quanta” of 1905 still dominates our
> vocabulary; even though no optical
> engineer ever try to propagate an
> “indivisible quanta”; they always
> propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they
> propagate Fourier monochromatic modes that
> neither exits in nature; nor is a causal
> signal. [I have been trying to correct
> this fundamental confusion through my
> book, “Causal Physics”.]
>
> Coming back to our methodology of
> thinking, I have defined an iterative
> approach in the Ch.12 of the above book. I
> have now generalized the approach by
> anchoring our sustainable evolution to
> remain anchored with the reality of
> nature! “Urgency of Evolution Process
> Congruent Thinking” [see attached].
>
> However, one can immediately bring a
> challenge. If all our interpretations are
> cooked up by our neural network for
> survival; then who has the authority to
> define objective reality? Everybody, but
> collaboratively, like modeling the “Cosmic
> Elephant”.
>
> Let us realize the fact that the seeing
> “color” is an interpretation by the brain.
> It is a complete figment of our
> neuro-genetic interpretation! That is why
> none of us will succeed in quantitatively
> defining the subtlety of color variation
> of any magnificent color painting without
> a quantitative spectrometer. The “color”
> is not an objective parameter; but the
> frequency is (not wavelength, though!).
> One can now recognize the subtle
> difference, from seeing “color”, to
> */quantifying energy content per frequency
> interval./* This is “objective” science
> determined by instruments without a
> “mind”, which is reproducible outside of
> human interpretations.
>
> And, we have already mastered this
> technology quite a bit. The biosphere
> exists. It has been nurturing biological
> lives for over 3.5 billion years without
> the intervention of humans. We are a very
> late product of this evolution. This is an
> objective recognition on our part! Our,
> successful evolution needed “instantaneous
> color” recognition to survive for our
> day-to-day living in our earlier stage. We
> have now overcome our survival mode as a
> species. And we now have become a pest in
> the biosphere, instead of becoming the
> caretaker of it for our own long-term
> future. */This is the sad break in our
> wisdom./* This is why I am promoting the
> concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process
> Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps
> generate a common, but perpetually
> evolving thinking platform for all
> thinkers, whether working to understand
> Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry,
> Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social
> Engineering (Economics, Politics,
> Religions, etc.).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM
> *To:*
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer,
> a deeper path to introspection
>
> Chandra:
>
> Unfortunately the TED talk does not work
> on my machine but the transcript is
> available and Anl Seth states what many
> people studying the human psyche as well
> as eastern philosophy have said for
> centuries , Yes we are Hallucinating
> reality and our physics is built upon that
> hallucination, but it works so well, or
> does it?
>
> However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist
> UC Irvine contends
> https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is
>
> What we see is like the icons on a
> computer screen, a file icon may only be a
> symbol of what is real on the disk, but
> these icons as well as the
> "hallucinations" are connected to some
> reality and we must take them seriously.
> Deleting the icon also deletes the disk
> which may have disastrous consequences.
>
> For our discussion group it means we can
> take Albrechts route and try to understand
> the universe and photons first based upon
> the idea that it is independently real and
> then solve the human consciousness problem
> or we can take the opposite approach and
> rebuild a physics without the independent
> physical reality assumption and see if we
> cannot build out a truly macroscopic
> quantum theory. Concentrating on finding
> the mechanisms of connection between the
> Hallucination and the reality is my
> approach. I think the constant speed of
> light assumption is one of the first
> pillars that must fall. If there is such a
> constant it should in my opinion be
> interpreted as the speed of Now , a
> property we individually apply to all our
> observations.
>
> best
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>
> Research Director
>
> Nascent Systems Inc.
>
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri,
> Chandra wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues:
>
> Lately there has been continuing
> discussion on the role of observer and
> the reality. I view that to be healthy.
>
> We must guide ourselves to understand
> and model the universe without human
> mind shaping the cosmic system and its
> working rules. This suggestion comes
> from the fact that our own logic puts
> the universe to be at least 13 billion
> years old, while we, in the human
> form, have started evolving barely 5
> million years ago (give or take).
>
> However, we are not smart enough to
> determine a well-defined and decisive
> path, as yet. Our search must
> accommodate perpetual iteration of
> thinking strategy as we keep on
> advancing. This is well justified in
> the following TED-talk.
>
> Enjoy:
>
> https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image
>
> Chandra.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
> <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170810/1e5e48ed/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list