[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Jul 30 12:00:20 PDT 2017
Wolf,
in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any particle accelerator and
particularly a synchrotron is a permanent check for the speed of light,
and in particular also a check of the Lorentz transformation where it
describes the behaviour of an object being accelerated towards c. And
that a behaviour of physics regarding c different from the Lorentz
transformation would require a different design of particle
accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream regarded the measured value
of the speed of light is permanently confirmed.
And in your mail of July 4 you presented the following equation for the
speed of light:
c^2 = c_0 ^2 *(1/(1-v^2 /c_0 ^2 )^1/2 ).
What ever the conditions for this equation should be, there exist
conditions for c to go to infinity. To this equation I have referred.
Albrecht
Am 29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Clarification:
>
> I have submitted equations in which the approximation of ( +2mm_l G/r
> -2mc^2 - mv^2 )^-1/2 =^~ ^1/2 mv^2 + mc^2 -mm_l G/r
>
> So that simply by recognizing that mc^2 is the classic potential
> energy inside a mass shell -m *Mu* G/Ru ofthe Universe we get a very
> simple cosmology that is completely consistent with all known
> experiments - the assumption is simply that the speed of light as a
> surrogate for the speed of all electromagnetic phenomena is dependent
> upon the gravitational potential which was shown by Shapiro's
> experiments. and light bending.and clock slow downs. I interpret c^2
> is the universe escape velocity.
>
> This does not mean the speed of light is infinite but only that if we
> could get outside the mass shell in flat space where the gravitational
> energy of the universe mass is zero the speed of light is some
> reference c_0 ^2 In both case the speed of lighjt and the energy is
> only determined to an arbitrary reference constant what is important
> is the relative energy or speed of light
>
> I'm tired of not being recognized as an intelligent physicist doing
> physics. I'm only claiming that the the first order approximation is
> all I know that has been experimentally verified length contraction
> and close to speed of light experiments are only verified through
> circular reasoning
>
> I have asked Albrecht for references to experiments that show
> otherwise a half dozen times but am always ignored
>
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht Giese 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-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>
>>
>>
>> <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>
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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 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/20170730/8919fdfe/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list