[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Aug 16 23:15:45 PDT 2017
Bell is right, so is Albrecht
but the preferred reference frame is your own- its so obvious - you see
empty space as another observable made up inside your greater self you
are in the center of your own space , eastern philosophers have said
this for years , centuries
The only real challenge is to build an engineering level theory that
incorporates a proper accounting of our own and final measuring
instrument, the self deception is called Maya , the average consensus
reality Man simply lives under and cannnot see alternative explanations
that are simpler and more encompassing.
I have the lead article in the Aug Issue of the Journal of Consciousness
Studies , most prodigious Journal on the topic. " Rose tinted Glasses
Effect" discusses exactly the problem sir a. Eddington warned us about -
the more we dig into nature the more we find the construction rules of
our own processes of investigation.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 8/16/2017 12:30 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Dear Chip:
>
> my remarks in your text below.
>
>
> Am 14.08.2017 um 17:05 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Dear Albrecht
>>
>> This is such an interesting discussion. Thank you for explaining your
>> views in a compelling manner, and for supporting your views with
>> logical arguments.
>>
>> We grope around, kind of in the dark, looking for logic and reason,
>> so we can make sense of the amazing puzzle of the universe.
>>
>> In that quest, let me share with you some of the thoughts I have had,
>> some of the reasoning behind my view of these puzzles.
>>
>> To begin, the concept that particles are made of energy is very
>> interesting to me.
>>
> Short interrupt: How is energy defined? -> Energy is the ability to do
> work. So, if there is energy somewhere, there must be a mechanism to
> transfer this energy to some object to give this object energy. Now my
> question: how can energy exist by itself as an abstract phenomenon so
> that some object can pick up this energy? There should be a mechanism,
> and with your position you should describe this mechanism.
>
> On the other hand, if energy is always connected to an object, i.e. it
> is a property of an object, it can easily be transferred to another
> object by the application of forces. That is understandable to me, so
> I prefer this approach.
>>
>>
>> My thoughts are that the simple, elementary particles, like the
>> electron, which displays no internal structure of other particles in
>> any experiment we have been able to conduct, is then probably a
>> direct manifestation, of how energy forms particles. I have been
>> finally able to put together a model of the electron which displays
>> all the properties of the electron, and is comprised of displacements
>> of space (the result of energy pulling on space) which propagate in a
>> confined transverse manner, to constitute the principally spherical
>> electron.
>>
> For me an interesting question is how something abstract - like energy
> - can form something real - like a particle. (Perhaps I need more
> details to understand it.)
>>
>> The reason I mention this model, is that it yields the properties of
>> the electron.
>>
>> 1.½ hbar spin when measured from any direction,
>>
>> 2.the exact electric charge of the electron,
>>
>> 3.the magnetic moment of the electron,
>>
>> 4.including the magnetic moment anomaly (accurate to 10 (or more)
>> decimal places),
>>
>> 5.the rest mass of the electron,
>>
>> 6.the inertial and gravitational mass of the electron,
>>
>> 7.a gravity field (as do photons in the same sort of model),
>>
>> 8.Point-like appearance in many types of experiments
>>
>> 9.The zitter frequency of the electron,
>>
>> 10. de Broglie’s waves are generated by this model,
>>
>> 11.The model produces a “pilot wave” (for photons also),
>>
>> 12.The ability to simply derive E=mc^2 from the model.
>>
>> 13.Energy must be added to move the electron (which causes an
>> internal mass increase)
>>
> This is an impressive list of facts and properties. But to judge it,
> it is of course necessary to have your model as a /quantitative /one,
> so that the single points can be checked. So, go ahead! - My model
> anyway does all this - and quantitatively by only assuming c and h as
> constants - as I have described it on my site "The origin of mass" and
> the sites referenced there.
>>
>> While some of the listed properties are not of direct relevance to
>> our discussion so far, the number of properties which agree with
>> experiment may indicate that the model is getting closer to a model
>> of the real electron.
>>
>> I am sure you can see now, why it is that I am of a different view
>> than you, with regards to some of the fundamentals. Like any invested
>> scientist, you and I have been able to find some answers by pursuing
>> different perspectives of the same puzzles, and we each treasure what
>> we have gained, so yes I am a bit psychologically and philosophically
>> invested, as I am sure you are.
>>
> If I look at your list above, my model also yields all what you claim.
> So, why do you say that it shows that we have different results?
>>
>> Now to address some of your comments:
>>
>> You commented:
>>
>> “/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.”/
>>
>> //
>>
>> While it is quite true that the momentum of massive objects can be
>> related to (and attributed to) inertia, it is not likely accurate to
>> say that, from this alone, we can logically conclude that momentum
>> cannot also cause inertia. *We see many examples in physics of
>> reciprocal relationships between causes and effects.* Momentum and
>> Inertia may also be reciprocal. One can cause the other. We have no
>> evidence which excludes this.
>>
> What we can say at least is that there is a strict correlation between
> inertia and momentum. The rest is a question of the model we are using
> - But I go a step further saying that inertia and momentum are notions
> for a physically identical fact, we just use the different notions for
> practical reasons depending on the application.
>>
>> Momentum is a type of force which tends to keep an object in motion.
>>
>> Inertia is also such a force which tends to keep an object in motion.
>>
>> In some ways they are names for the same effect. The difference
>> arises when we introduce the concept of mass. If there is a
>> mechanism, for example, which gives a photon momentum, do we then say
>> that the photon has mass? Some have done this, but it is not strictly
>> the same as the mass of an object, for we cannot bring a photon to
>> rest, nor can we accelerate it. Without getting into semantics
>> arguments, I would suggest that we call this property of a photon
>> “momentum”, instead of “inertia”, because the photon does not behave
>> like a massive particle or object.
>>
>> If you agree with this line of reasoning, then we could also agree
>> that the photon is an example of momentum without mass.
>>
>> Even if you disagree, bear with me for a moment, while we discuss the
>> implications of a photon having momentum without mass. If the
>> photon, a massless, light speed particle, has momentum, then we have
>> an example of momentum which may indicate that momentum is more
>> fundamental than mass, and could actually be a cause for mass. Even
>> if you disagree with this concept please keep it in mind, for it may
>> prove useful in the future.
>>
> But perhaps semantics at this moment. How is inertia defined? ->
> Inertia is the resistance against a change of the speed of an object.
> Now this is not necessarily restricted to the amount of speed, but can
> also mean the direction of the speed vector. And then: the speed
> vector of a photon can be changed and this change needs a force, and
> in the general case the force transfers energy. In this respect the
> situation is not different from other particles.
>>
>> But given the previous few paragraphs, I must disagree with you about
>> inertia and momentum. I feel that there is no proof that momentum
>> cannot cause mass or inertia, in fact I find significant evidence
>> that momentum does in fact cause both mass and therefore inertia.
>>
> Then there must be a mechanism causing momentum. Which is this
> mechanism? If you have this opinion you should be able do describe it.
> - For inertia I have a basic mechanism which only needs the finiteness
> of c and the existence of binding forces, nothing more.
>>
>> (In the paper I mentioned on Gravity, it was requisite to also
>> include a discussion of the creation of fundamental momentum as a
>> natural consequence of the propagation of transverse displacements in
>> the tension medium of space. I will share a copy when that is paper
>> is ready.)
>>
>> This issue regarding gravity is another significant reason that I
>> feel that momentum is fundamental, and is created by the propagation
>> mechanism of transverse displacements. This is because, with
>> momentum created in this manner, which in turn creates mass when
>> those propagations are suitably confined, the *force* of gravity
>> comes from the energy (mass) within the particle. Gravity is then a
>> refraction of the propagation of the displacements within the
>> particle. All particles have the same refraction (acceleration) in a
>> gravitational field, all objects would fall at the same rate, but a
>> more massive object (an object which contains more of this
>> propagating energy) would generate a greater force in the gravity field.
>>
> You say:"... with momentum created in this manner ...". So, please, in
> which manner is momentum created? And earlier you say: " ... I feel
> that momentum is fundamental ...". Isn't this a logical conflict?
> Either "fundamental" or "created" ...
>
> And "momentum creates mass" and from "this mass comes force"? Which
> physics is going on there?
>>
>> So there are many solutions, which become easy and evident using such
>> an approach, too many for me to reject the concept that momentum may
>> be more fundamental than mass or inertia. There are too many clues,
>> too much supporting evidence, that this is the correct premise, for
>> me to conclude otherwise.
>>
> Form the preceding I do not see how it works. And particularly: how
> does it work /quantitatively/? Where are the equations for it?
>>
>> Regarding conservation of energy: I understand that you must reject
>> the fundamental conservation of energy in order for your model to
>> remain viable. And then reconstruct a higher level cause for it, at
>> the particle level, so that it can remain intact in the macro,
>> observable world. But I think this is an area for some careful
>> consideration. Do we change (reinterpret) the evidence so that it
>> fits our models? We may do that, but it seems we have to be very
>> careful, because the objective is to model the real universe.
>>
> My logic is the other way around. I can see from my model why energy
> is conserved - on the level of an elementary particle or above that.
> And following this consequence, I do not have a problem with exchange
> particles.
>
> And, BTW, quantum mechanics are using exchange particles, they have
> introduced it. And they have the position that energy conservation is
> fundamental. So, they do not see a conflict here. It is just me to
> suspect this conflict. Which, however, does not exist in my model.
>>
>> You Commented:
>>
>> “/There have been many ideas in the past to have a theory of an
>> ether, but those all have caused great problems…”/
>>
>> On the contrary, the “great problems” you mention above don’t seem to
>> exist.
>>
>> *John Stewart Bell said*.”/I would say that the cheapest resolution
>> is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein,
>> when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an
>> aether – a preferred frame of reference – but that our measuring
>> instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not
>> detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine
>> that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred
>> frame of reference (some) things do go faster than light”…” Behind
>> the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper
>> level which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of
>> Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent,
>> and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there
>> is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations
>> occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion
>> through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view./”
>>
>> I have found the same things which Bell expressed.
>>
>> A perfectly coherent model.
>>
> What John Bell says here is exactly what my position is. In my last
> mail I have said that I believe the existence of an ether of the kind
> that there is an absolute frame of reference. I do not see here that
> Bell assumes space to be filled with something, a property or a
> material. - (Where did you find this text of Bell?)
>
> My remark that "ether" has caused problems in the history is directed
> to an ether model which assumes that space is filled with something,
> whatever it may be.
>>
>> A model in which the contractions and dilations, Lorentz
>> Transformation, MUST occur due to the nature of matter, and of energy.
>>
>> I this model, the correct value of the force of electric charge is
>> easily calculated. Gravity is easily understood, including the
>> equivalence mechanism for gravitational and inertial mass.
>>
> In the Lorentzian relativity (i.e. SRT) there are two mechanisms
> fundamental. One is the fact that fields contract at motion. This has
> nothing to do with energy or other influences. (And it can be
> explained best if exchange particles are assumed.) The other one is
> the fact that there is a permanent motion at c in elementary
> particles, which causes dilation. This motion is what Schrödinger has
> called "Zitterbewegung". He found that the Dirac function can only
> work on the basis of this assumption.
>
> How do you calculate the force of the electric charge quantitatively?
>>
>> So, yes, I will continue to refrain from accepting exchange particles
>> for the creation of charge, or the Higgs mechanism for the creation
>> of mass. It seem much more fully understandable, much more elegant
>> and simple, to take this other specific view of the causes for what
>> we observe. That view is that space is a fairly simple tension
>> medium, and fundamental energy pulls on space to displace space.
>> This does not address what it is that comprises space itself, only
>> that there must be at least two components which constitute space.
>> This does mean that space has a set of properties which are
>> universal. Identifying and quantifying those properties are part of
>> my current work. As to what space is made of, unknown at this time.
>> But we have to take this discovery like peeling an onion, one layer
>> at a time.
>>
> I am very curious about your quantitative description of the tension
> field which as you say fills the space. - But one correction: exchange
> particles are not assumed to create charge. They are emitted from
> charges and mediate the force between charges.
>>
>> Thank you again for this stimulating discussion.
>>
>> Chip
>>
> I think we are not so different as it looks like. So, let's go on!
> Albrecht
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 14, 2017 3:10 AM
>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List 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 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
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170816/2ce3277f/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list