[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection

Fri Jul 28 22:50:31 PDT 2017

I respond to Albrecht's challenge #2 regarding light quantization.  

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.  (1) 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.

Let me show you the alternative to light quantization. Light quantization is not necessary for the Compton effect or anything else.  A wave derivation is in Compton's book.  Compton's model was clumsy but one can see how I fixed that.  The derivation uses Bragg scattering and Doppler-shift formulas.  By realizing properties of the matter-wave, we need not take that leave of our senses required to accept consequences of QM, such as entanglement. To see my alternative model requires that one drop the particle model and think in terms of what the experiment is saying, not people.  In other words, if one describes an experiment in terms of photons (demonstrated above) one will end up with photons.   Similarly for electrons, if one describes an experiment in terms of quantized charge one will end with a particle model.  An understanding of charge is required for an understanding of charge.  Charge is interpreted as quantized, from tests like Millikan's oil drop.  I say those interpretations are unfounded due to ensemble effects and surface tension.  In any case, it is a big assumption to extrapolate from an ensemble of charge in the oil drop, to free charge properties.  My tests say charge is thresholded (not quantized), and also kinetic energy is thresholded in the photoelectric effect.  Of course, you might say: we know charge acts like a particle due to cathode ray deflection measurements, or Albrecht's experiment.  What we really see are ratios:  e/m, h/m, and e/h.  The ratios are quantized.  This ratio principle is apparent in key experiments famous for wave-particle duality (see my work).   Equations with more elaborate powers of constants, not in such simple ratios, describe systems that are not spreading in space (particles).  With wave systems, we see those simple ratios I mentioned. 
In addition to that ratio principle is a threshold principle.  Thresholds can replace quantization.     Now, you might say I am introducing assumptions.  No.  I have cleverly devised a model to describe reality such that you cannot tell the difference  :)     I speak from many experiments whereby I demonstrate a two-for-one effect.  "Two-for-one" if you think in terms of particles.   My experiment forces the issue: you either give up always-particle models or give up energy conservation.  We embrace energy conservation.  Of course, you can also say I did something wrong.   See in my writing how much I agonized to find something wrong.  Please, then ask me if I considered such-and-such in my 12 years of experiments.   My work is plenty rigorous.  
   My work is at thresholdmodel.com and was presented at your SPIE 2015. 
Thank you,  Eric Reiter

On Friday, July 28, 2017, 8:54:33 AM PDT, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de> wrote:

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-mail 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 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> 

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

|  | Virenfrei. www.avast.com  |

 _______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at unquant at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.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/20170729/01436c57/attachment.htm>