[General] Photon Emission - Space
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Sun Jul 16 05:57:52 PDT 2017
Hi Chandra
I recall you mentioning something about light being emitted or absorbed by
dipoles.
My work, on electric charge as a displacement of the tensor medium of space,
has been quite productive and yields remarkably accurate results. But it
seems to indicate that a dipole field may be required for the emission or
absorption of energy.
Can you elaborate on your thoughts on this topic?
Is there a reference to a paper where you discuss this?
This "tensor medium of space" approach explains exactly why the binding
energy for hydrogen is 13.6eV, but it also suggests that there are specific
requirements for radiation and absorption which go beyond the simple
suggestion that "an accelerated charge radiates".
I think that is a good thing, because it also explains why electrons in
"orbit" in an atom do not continuously radiate.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 5:22 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Consciousness, time etc
Wolf,
Of all the various emails flying about, I had to respond immediately to this
one.
I really DON'T reject your contention - indeed I agree with it 100%!
Consciousness is the ultimate substrate, IMO - it's the 'ocean' in which all
the 'fish' (physical phenomena) swim, and indeed all of those 'fish' are
themselves woven by consciousness (mixing my metaphors a bit here!). More
than this, time and space (spatial dimensions) are themselves constructs of
consciousness. My point is simply: accepting all of that, we don't need to
keep referring to it (any more than we need to keep referring back to the
breed of sheep that our sweater initially comes from!) in order to discuss
and analyse physical effects. YES, those physical effects ARE created and
sustained by consciousness - but in a coherent and consistent way, subject
to 'physical laws' (defined and given form by consciousness, sure - but we
can take that as read without constantly referring back to it). So we can
reason in respect of those 'physical realities' in respect of the 'physical
laws' that are built into them. In the same way, we all agree that a log
cabin is made of wood, which has a cellular structure; but once we have
ascertained the properties of the wood we're using, we can carve it into
different shapes, make roof timbers, structural supports etc of it without
having to constantly remind ourselves that it originally came from a tree
with these types of leaves and this particular cellular structure - though
the cellular structure is crucial to the properties of the wood, we can take
and use those properties 'as they turn out', without having to relate them
constantly to that cell structure. So it is, in my view, with 'space-time'
properties of 'physical realities' (given that they are in fact constructs
of constructs of constructs of ... ultimately, consciousness).
With regard to your note in light blue, you may be surprised also to hear
that I have for some long time held the view that you have expressed (I
think), namely that time is the consequence of the experience of
consciousness sequentially along energy lines [the issue of 'sequential' as
a causation of time rather than a consequence is a difficult one, but not
impossible to conceptualise, as I do in the following items]. You may be
interested in my article: 'Time, Light and Consciousness', published by the
SMN ten years ago http://transfinitemind.com/SMN_article.php (see my 4th
para: "time is the process of consciousness moving along energy lines") ,
also my blog post: 'Time doesn't exist: a step-by-step proof'
http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 .
Thanks for taking such trouble to put your ideas across. I'm sure we're on
the same page - just looking at that page from a slightly different angle.
All the best,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Grahame;
I agree we need to stop the ping pong.
And I have to digest "Layers of Reality" since it is an intriguing title and
as such could reflect much of my own thinking.
That you reject my contention that your personal conscious perception space
underlies and always provides the aether in which all objects you percieve
exist including the clock and the observer riding along with it , and
therefore is in my opinion missing key to understanding SRT and GRT and
precisely relevant to your discussion with Albrecht, is for me sad but I
assume it is because i'm not making myself clear. I'll try to put a better
formulation together and get back in a few weeks. Can't help making a last
comment to your comment in blue below.
best
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
On 7/15/2017 9:07 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
Wolf (and Chip),
First and most important point: I have no wish or intention to get drawn
into the sort of 'email ping-pong' (aka 'tit-for-tat') that I've watched
going on here over this issue, so I'll try to address these points simply
with facts as I see them - no blame, no criticism, just observations.
Second: the fact that I propose that certain phenomena can be explained in a
wholly mechanistic way, without reference to consciousness, doesn't mean
that I don't regard consciousness as having a part to play in the
perceptual/cognitive process - far from it. In my view consciousness is
absolutely key to anything we perceive or analyse; however, in my view also,
consciousness has provided/evolved for itself perceptual and analytical
tools that behave in a totally consistent way; therefore, for analytical
purposes we can regard measurements and conclusions as being 'so' (i.e.
actuality) at a certain level, we don't need to agonise over how
consciousness has provided us with them or what underlies them. [Some may
find my talk: 'Layers of Reality' useful to understand my take on such
things: http://transfinitemind.com/layers_of_reality.php , username: xxxxx
, password: xxxxx .] I believe, Wolf, that if you were aware of my own
view on how central consciousness is to the whole process, it would surprise
even you.
With those points in mind, I have responded, Wolf, to your comments to me,
under those comments, in maroon text.
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Chip and Graham:
Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement regarding Special
relativity: "But I do agree that Special Relativity, as written and
discussed by Einstein himself, has a fundamental paradoxical logical
inconsistency, which cannot be explained away by layers of additional
"interpretation" of his theory." This was my original intent. First 1) to
show that inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show that GRT was one
avenue of development that utilizes gravity and acceleration to address the
problems in SRT and to forward our understanding of gravity, and thirdly 3)
to open the door for new directions. I did not anticipate getting blind
sided by alternative interpretations that then did not further the
discussion into step two and three. At least not in a step by step logical
way.
Chip second: "When several "observers" read the data then collected and
communicate about that data, it is clear to us that we have all viewed the
same data. It is therefore quite ridiculous to assume that we, the
"observers", had a notable effect on the outcome of the automated experiment
weeks earlier." It is ridiculous only within the context of an Aristotelian
framework of reality in which one assumes there is a thing called "the same
data". What if Plato, Kant and to some extent quantum theory is correct and
the data no matter how or when it is viewed is and always has been in the
eye of the beholder? Then the observer does influence the outcome of the
experiment because for him the data he sees is reality and that reality will
depend upon how he sees it.
The question I ask myself is can a useful and quantitative physics be built
without "the same data" assumption. In philosophy this is called the "naive
reality" assumption and Aristotle's view that we are looking out through the
windows of our senses at an objective real world has won the day for 500
years and it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats who have come to
this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.
Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "as
specifically limited to physical realities" and want to stay within the
limits of your definition of physical realities and exclude how the nature
of perception, and your(my) truism that perception is a tool of the
conscious mind, effects and to a large extent determines our physical
theories (which I believe is at the center of understanding both SRT and GRT
and why they are incompatible with quantum theory) then I am sorry I
interjected my comments into your discussion. Please keep taking and I'll
just listen quietly.
Wolf, I am by no means dismissing your observations on consciousness as
irrelevant to the issue of perception - far from it. I'm simply observing
that the phenomena that Albrecht and I have been discussing can be explained
fully satisfactorily in terms of mechanistic interactions, without resorting
to how consciousness interprets those interactions. In simple terms, using
my idea of 'layers (or levels) of reality' we are simply discussing 'facts'
as presented to our brains for analysis - trusting that consciousness uses a
consistent, coherent and useful form in which to convey those 'facts'
(i.e.deeper realities) to our mental processing circuits, given that
consciousness and those processing circuits are all on the same side! In
this respect, introducing consideration of how consciousness has processed
those deeper realities in order to present those 'facts' to our brains in a
more digestible format is to introduce an unnecessary and (IMO) unhelpful
level of complexity to this issue. Certainly there is a time and a place
for discussion of consciousness - but (again IMO) this is not it.
However I find it very important to have a polite foil to discuss what I
believe is the greatest of the grand challenges confronting science - i.e.
the unification of subjective and subjective experience into a new
integrated theory not of every thing, but of every action.
I agree that that is indeed very important - but it's not the subject of the
conversation that Albrecht and I were having - that's all I was trying to
say.
Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "an observer or
measuring device moving with that object will draw conclusions (by human
inference or solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and therefore
they are also) - wholly as a consequence of their/its own physical makeup
being altered by that state of motion. Likewise that moving observer/device
will assess an objectively static object (such as an atom) as being in a
state of motion, for exactly the same reason." The key here is "observer or
measuring device moving with" I am only talking about an observer. A
measuring device only relays information someone must be at the end of the
chain to realize the information. The observer is in the measuring device,
he cannot get out. He receives information and translates it into his mental
display. Both the apparently stationary object "moving with the observer"
and any apparently moving object in his display will be subject to the
Lonrentz transformations BECAUSE these appearances are always created in the
medium of that observers mind. I believe it is a grave error to treat the
properties of the mind as an objective independent reality. But everyone
does it until Now!
A measuring device provides information in a format determined by, and so
capable of assimilation by, an observer. In that respect I fully agree that
the observer (or a former observer who constructed the device) is in the
measuring device, and what the observer takes away from that device is as
much in the perception of that observer as it is in the device itself.
However, I repeat: the consciousness that constructed the device is the same
consciousness as that which is making use of the measurements it provides -
and both are working to the same aim. So, just as one who knitted a sweater
and one who wears the sweater are both well aware of the intrinsic
composition of the sweater (interwoven strands of wool, taken from a sheep
then cleaned and dyed and spun), but neither need to be troubled by that
detail when selling or wearing the sweater, neither consciousness nor the
brain need to agonise over how those data came to be served up in that form,
they can simply be processed as facts - at the level of logical reasoning
(again, see my piece on 'layers of reality'). The question of 'how those
facts came to be in that form' is of great interest - but it's a separate
question from the one currently at hand.
I do not understand your logic. When referring to an observer riding along
with the clock one assumes that observer measures the same reality as the
conceiver of the thought experiment put into the space in which the clock
and the observer is conceived. This equating the ride along observer's
observations with the "reality" built into the thought experimenter's space
is an example of the "naive reality' assumption. Einstein assumed his
perceptive space was reality and of course the speed of light in that
reality would be what ever it is "c" , and all observers must get the same
result when they measure any quantity in that reality because that is the
reality and there is only one correct one. There is nothing inconsistent or
illogical about SRT or GRT once one accepts the assumption that the speed of
light is an independent of the observer objective fact. That is the
assumption I question and it is quite relevant to your discussion with
Albrecht.
Graham3: I have no disagreement with your reciprocity argument. I only
wanted to point out that in both the cases the human observer experiences
his motion relative to the radiation source in his own display space.
Agreed. That's exactly why it's essential to consider what effect a state
of motion has on that display space, in purely physical terms. This is what
I have done.
Graham 4: "philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the point
of a needle!" makes perfect sense to people who believe in god, heaven, and
angels as the stake your life on it truth. Physicists arguing about what two
measuring objects will conclude about each other also makes perfect sense to
people who believe observers can ride along with them and see them as
independent external objects without recognizing that they (the observers)
are doing the seeing that creates these objects.
Wolf, there is the world of difference between 100% hypothetical entities
such as angels and 100% physical experiences such as travelling alongside an
object and taking measurements of it. Assuredly the latter is a level of
perception that is unquestionably quite a few layers above that of ultimate
reality (if such exists), however it is also something that falls within the
remit of physical experience and is therefore fair game for physical
analysis (even if we accept - as I do - that what we are analysing is an
effect of an effect of an effect ... it is still self-consistent and so
susceptible to analysis - unlike angels)
I'll try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds like a good starting
point for my 3d) effort introduced in paragraph 1 above.
Wolf, I'm most flattered that you consider that my culmination of 20 years'
work may be a good starting point for one of your hypotheses. As long as
you give due attribution for every point of mine that you make use of, you
can be as condescending as you like!
G
Best wishes
Wolf
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_____
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20170716/e2c9ee78/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list