[General] Role of observer, a deeper path to introspection
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Jul 31 14:52:33 PDT 2017
Chandra:
anxious to here how Albrecht responds to the alternative explanations of
his thesis
Regarding your philosophic comment - Thank you , exactly why I'm writing
a book on the subject.
I read your "Urgency of evolution.." paper and agree with most of your
sentiment but find the physics arguments most useful- Your slide #20 and
your IPM-E analysis dove tails, in my opinion with a kind of loading
theory that Eric tried to address in his sPIE paper , In fact I talked
to him and he said that early school experiments he had done show that
the onset of the work function offset is NOT instantaneous as stated in
most text books. If a verified experiment could measure the delay we
could get a handle on the rate of the ensemble energy build up of the
many packets your analysis shows.
He also uses the analogy of a kind of cup filled up
In my paper I proposed gravitational fluctuations (Cahill) might do the
trick but our verification experiments have not shown the effect.
Another aspect to the argument is the resonant antenna work that is now
being verified in Nano wires , these can pull in EM energy from a
crossection larger than an electron orbit and thus answer the density
problem, which forced people to assume particle light.
Wolf
PS: I still do not see any of my comments in the disussion group and
this makes it difficult to follow a thread.
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 7/31/2017 12:45 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> 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
> 90^th 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 a*/ny 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-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 <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 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 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/20170731/d4862641/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list