[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Jul 30 22:05:01 PDT 2017
Chandra:
Do you want to take a first crack at this? I do not want to keep budding
in on your converation
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
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
>> *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://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
>> <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/20170730/d0ad36d4/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list