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

Mon Jul 31 12:45:30 PDT 2017

Albrecht:

“How do you explain the process going on in my experiment without assuming the photon as a particle? (Details again below.)
“And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons.”… Albrecht

I picked up the above quotations from below. So, I assume that you are asking me to explain physical process behind Compton Effect by classical approach.

I am attaching two papers in support of semi-classical approach. Dodd directly goes to explain Compton Effect by semi-classical model. Nobeliate Lamb puts down the very “photon” concept generically. I knew Lamb through many interactions. Myself and another colleague had edited a special issue in his honor (see attached) dedicated on his 90th birthday.

Chandra.

PS: Regarding Philosophy: In my viewpoint, the gravest mistake of the physics community for several hundred years has been to consider self-introspection of our individual thinking logic as unnecessary philosophy. Erroneous assumption behind that is to think that our neural network is a perfectly objective organ; rather than a generic “hallucinating” organ to assure our successful biological evolution. It is high time that physicists, as a community, start appreciating this limiting modes of thinking logic have been holding us back. This is why I have become a “broken record” to repeatedly keep on “playing” the same ancient story of five collaborating blind men modeling an elephant.  Their diverse “objective” observations do not automatically blend in to a logically self-consistent living animal. Only when they impose the over-arching condition that it is a living animal, their iterative attempts to bring SOME conceptual continuity between the diverse “objective” observations; their model starts to appear as “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant, that we are trying to model, is a lot more complex system. We are not yet in a position to declare any of our component theories as a final theory! Fortunately, reproducible experimental validations of many mathematical theories imply that the laws of nature function causally. Sadly, Copenhagen Interpretation insists on telling nature that she ought to behave non-causally at the microscopic level. As if, a macro causal universe can emerge out of non-causal micro universe!

==================================================
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<mailto: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-mail wolf 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 at Wolf 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 at phys 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://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<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 at phys 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>

_______________________________________________

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-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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/01003af2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 83_Compton by Semiclassical-Dodd.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 491985 bytes
Desc: 83_Compton by Semiclassical-Dodd.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/01003af2/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2003.3_OSA.News.Ed._What'sPhoton.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1323254 bytes
Desc: 2003.3_OSA.News.Ed._What'sPhoton.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/01003af2/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 95_Anti-photon-Lamb.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 976368 bytes
Desc: 95_Anti-photon-Lamb.pdf
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170731/01003af2/attachment-0002.pdf>