[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Fri Jul 28 08:54:34 PDT 2017
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. 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. So, it is true physics.
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.
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. 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.
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
> *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
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170728/d6788a44/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list