[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Aug 14 01:09:48 PDT 2017
Dear Chip,
I think that we are coming to a point where we have to argue / decide
the permanent question which theory is the easiest one and needs the
smallest number of assumptions. I shall try to apply this to our
discussion points in the following.
Am 10.08.2017 um 22:17 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Dear Albrecht
>
> Thank you once again for some thought provoking comments.
>
> I will also reply in the body of the text below.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2017 1:59 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>
> 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.
>
> This conservation of energy issue is not a concern, and energy is
> conserved, if we view space as a tension medium instead of empty.
> With that one simple premise, we then have conservation of energy, and
> a causal explanation of specifically how particles possess energy, and
> how fields possess energy. I feel the conservation of energy is
> crucial and is probably a law of physics. It seems that to ignore
> such a concept violates cause and effect and then becomes “not
> physics” as you have stated regarding other topics. I think therefore
> there must be energy so that we can have objects.
>
Historically the understanding that energy is conserved is quite young.
It was found in the middle of the 19th century by the observation that
mechanical energy is converted into heat energy so that a conservation
could be assumed. This seems important to me because if /logic /would
demand this conservation, then I think that it would have been detected
much earlier.
Anyway if we see it as an advantage of a theory that as few as possible
laws are taken as fundamental and as many as possible laws as deducible,
then I conclude that a theory that deduces this conservation of energy
should be superior. I understand this as an argument in favour of my model.
And one advantage for my assumption that the conservation of energy is a
property of the configuration within particles is that with this
assumption I do not see any arguments in disfavour of exchange particles
(which is of course a model, not necessarily final understanding).
>
> 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.
>
> Due to these problems with exchange particles, I began a few decades
> ago, looking for some logical alternate explanation. This is what led
> me to explore the possibility that we had gotten it wrong, and that
> space might not be empty. That study has been more fruitful than I
> could have imagined. The approach I have been suggesting makes things
> much simpler to model and understand. While that in itself does not
> mean this approach is the right approach, there are many other
> supporting clues and evidence which become apparent as this avenue is
> explored. One reason I currently prefer this approach is the
> fortunate effect such an approach has in removing the host of
> “magical” explanations we have become so accustomed to accepting
> without supporting cause or proofs.
>
To see this I need more knowledge about your approach. Particularly the
property of a non-empty space. What is in it? There have been many ideas
in the past to have a theory of an ether, but those all have caused
great problems to my knowledge. So please give details.
Of course we all do not want "magical" explanations. But that is a
matter of judgement, not of facts.
>
> 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.
>
> That is interesting, My reading of all I could get of Lorentz’s
> work, has left me with the impression that he actually preferred a
> fixed frame in a medium of space.
>
Can you please give a reference for a text which gave you this
impression about the ether of Lorentz? If you look at the logic of his
deduction of relativity, he only seems to need the assumption that the
speed of light is defined with respect to some fixed reference frame,
nothing more. - I can give as a reference a book:
[Ludwik_Kostro]_Einstein_and_the_ether(BookFi.org.pdf) .
Ludwik Kostro is a Polish professor for theoretical physics who has
worked many years about the topic of ether. In this book he shows in
detail the discussions of Einstein also with Lorentz about ether, and
that shows quite clearly the position of Lorentz about it.
>
>
> 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?
>
> A gradient of space is a gradient in the tension field of space caused
> by the displacement of space which is in turn caused by energy of
> particles. Much as displacement caused a gradient in an elastic solid.
> Refraction of propagating transverse displacements in a medium is
> quite naturally caused by such a gradient, and we have many examples
> of such refraction.
>
To understand this I need more information about what this tension field
is. Up to now I am afraid that it could be very complicated, which would
not be good.
You also say at the end that gravitation is caused by the energy of
particles (one could also say: by the mass of particles). In my view
this is not the case but every elementary particles contributes equally
to the gravitational field. This is unfamiliar, but I do not know any
experiment which is in conflict with this assumption. On the contrary,
there are two points which could be in favour of it: One is the fact
that every object has the same gravitational acceleration independent of
its mass. This fact was never understood and is said to be one of the
great mysteries of present physics. The other benefit is that this
assumption explains the rotation curves of rotating galaxies. They are,
as you surely know, presently "explained" by the assumption of some
mysterious Dark Matter, for which the experimenters look since some time
without any indication that there is something like that. But with my
assumption the photons serve as this Dark Matter, and this is not only
an idea but it works quantitatively for precisely observed and measured
galaxies.
>
> You say that exchange particles explain gravity and that “more is not
> necessary” but exchange particles themselves are unexplainable by any
> of our existing physics, so I think more is necessary my friend.
>
Why are exchange particles unexplainable? Their existence is kind of a
model as there are many, and this model does not need many assumptions.
Only the asumption that charges of any kind emit and receive these
particles and each interaction with an exchange particle transfers a
certain momentum - attracting or repelling - in the direction where the
e.p. comes. They are mass-less and move always at c. And at emission
they move uniformly into all directions. Which explains the 1/r^2 law of
forces in a simple and geometric way. For which there is to my knowledge
no other explanation available. - So, what is complicated or
unexplainable with this assumption?
>
> Regarding momentum, the force Fc that you and I have discussed, plays
> a role in the creation of momentum for the energy circulating within
> particles. I can provide a fairly complete hypothesis for this
> creation of momentum if you are interested, but it is also based on
> the concept that space is a tension medium and the energy causes a
> displacement of space by pulling on space.
>
Any details available?
>
> Once we can see how it is that momentum is created by this force, we
> can then see why it is that confined circulating momentum causes
> inertial mass in fermions, but is just evident as momentum in photons.
> Richard Gauthier has written a paper on how confined momentum creates
> inertial mass. I have a slightly different derivation but they are
> principally the same.
>
I know the concept of Richard Gauthier as we have discussed this some
time ago. My objection is that momentum and mass have a common cause,
and that is inertia. One cannot explain inertia by momentum as inertia
is the cause of momentum. If there would be no inertia in the world
there would also be no momentum of the kind known. And I do not know any
explanation in physics for inertia except the Higgs concept (which does
not work as the Higgs field does not exist) and my model which refers it
to the finite propagation speed of forces and which has precise
quantitative results.
>
> I am finishing up a paper on gravity and will soon share this if you
> are interested in looking at such a different approach for you own.
>
I will be curious to see your paper.
>
> 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
>
> Nice discussion!!!
>
> Chip
>
Still exciting!
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
> <mailto: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 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/20170814/922efd56/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list