[General] HA: Gravity
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun May 7 12:32:34 PDT 2017
Chandra:
I must have lost the reference to Chips paper but re-read the attached
paper on the uncertainty principle and think it is a very good critique
and warning why not to take analogies as proofs of otherwise
theoretical/mathematical conjectures. I especially like the narrow beam
laser summation of two independent single slit experiment that leads to
the double slit pattern. One would think this proves wave interference
not quantum particle splitting is the physical phenomena. I myself did a
reverse double slit experiment by shining a laser on the edges of two
razor blades, simply looking at these with my eye made it very clear
that the interference pattern was produced by the excitation of two
linear antennas i.e. the sharp parallel razor edges. A similar careful
examination of a double slit one can actually see the each side of each
slit being excited as well. The eye when properly used is a marvelous
instrument.
In any case elevating what looks to be an empirical description to a
fundamental law feels more like dogma than science. but what to do about
it? I feel ike I'm watching the marvelous street singer who gets a few
dollars outside the Metropolitan opera. Its not the song that makes the
difference.
thanks for sending it.
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 5/2/2017 4:14 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> Hi Chip:
>
> Your ambitious philosophical approach, “On the Foundation of Physics”,
> is definitely impressive. I have not spend enough time to assess
> whether your approach could yield any major breakthrough in physics. I
> hope it does.
>
> However, as you are aware, I am a very “classical” thinker when it
> comes to photon. I am with Planck, the real father of quantized energy
> release. Planck’s photon always propagates as a wave packet within the
> Blackbody cavity. Based on Planck’s views, I have defined “Photon =
> h-nu” as only a transient quantum-brick at the moment of quantum
> transition. Immediately thereafter, the “photon-brick” emergences as a
> quasi-exponential propagating harmonic of the CTF (Complex Tension
> Field). During absorption (transition) of “h-Nu” out of the “spread
> out” EM waves, the atomic and molecular quantum dipoles function as
> “h-nu quantum cups”. We do not need any quantization of the EM waves.
>
> I based my model to accommodate the ancient and modern spectrometric
> observations and also based upon my causal theory of spectrometers (in
> my book). Old classical spectrometric theory is non-causal as it
> starts with infinitely existing Fourier mode. Formalism of Quantum
> Mechanics never developed proper concepts (or guidelines) as to how a
> spectrometer generates certain “spectral width” as the light passes
> through a spectrometer. In fact, this one of the most fundamental
> philosophical (methodology of thinking) problem of quantum mechanics.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chandra.
>
> PS: Apparently, at his thesis defense, Heisenberg was asked by Wien to
> explain the root cause behind the “resolving power limit” of a
> microscope, or a telescope, or a spectroscope. Young Heisenberg was
> totally silent! He still passed the exam to write his famous paper
> rationalizing “Indeterminacy” as a nature’s inherent property, rather
> than as a pure functional limit of human constructed instruments.
> Today, we optically image molecules with resolving powers thousands of
> time smaller than “Lambda/2” known by people during Heisenberg’s time.
> I have a 1978 paper criticizing this kind of thinking (see attached).
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Chip Akins
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 4:31 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
> Hi All
>
> Found an error in some of the math. Corrected version of this working
> draft attached.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Monday, May 01, 2017 5:15 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
> Wolf (et al.),
>
> My response is below your response to Albrecht's response to a small
> fragment of my earlier response to your response to Al.
>
> Regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> *To:*phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ;
> general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> ;
> af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
>
> *Sent:*Monday, May 01, 2017 2:47 AM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
> 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 4/29/2017 12:38 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> _Grahame,_
>
> you say: " ... the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the
> consequences of those distributed entities ALREADY being
> present to some degree at every point in the cosmos ... "
>
> But look at the following cases: 1.) There may be two twin
> stars which orbit each other. Their distance is rapidly
> changing during an orbit. So the gravitational influences to
> their environment will change. And for this change I see the
> question justified which the propagation speed of this
> influence is. I think that your statement above does not cover
> this case, true? 2.) An even less regular case: I know a
> colleague (professor) who has built and performs an experiment
> to determine again the gravitational constant. In doing this
> he has two massive objects which he moves towards each other
> or apart from each other and measures the force between them.
> This process depends on his momentary decisions, so it is
> completely irregular compared to other physical processes. So,
> also in this case, nothing is constant or even predetermined.
>
> Perhaps Grahame was thinking more of a Block universe were
> everything is already determined and therefore in one state
> determined by the initial conditions, actually any single
> description in a time instance. Then we are talking about events
> in dynamic states which interact with other events also in dynamic
> states and the interactions change both states.
>
> No - Grahame is simply referring to the universal principle of
> causality*, coupled with the well-established fact that a massive
> object at one location influences, to some degree, the behaviour
> of every other massive object at every other location. This makes
> no suppositions as to what might be termed a 'clockwork universe',
> indeed it permits (without supposition of any of these options): a
> totally non-deterministic universe; underlying causation of
> supposed quantum non-determinism (I personally regard such
> causation as 100% consistent with so-called 'wavefunction
> collapse'); MWI (though I personally have a fair degree of
> contempt for this concept); influence at a sub-quantum level of
> nonphysical universal consciousness (aka panpsychism) on
> supposedly non-deterministic quantum events - a totally valid
> scientific option which is dismissed by most present-day
> mainstream physicists on grounds that appear ideological rather
> than scientifically-based (I have yet to see any scientific
> evidence for this dogmatism).
>
> I hope that clarifies my position - and I believe that you'll find
> this position 100% consistent with the proposal that I have put
> forward regarding gravitation.
>
> [For completeness I'd agree that we're talking about events in
> dynamic states which interact with other events also in dynamic
> states and the interactions change both states; if we're not, then
> we're not talking about any universe that I've ever lived in.]
>
> [* It's possible that there is a higher principle of causality,
> not subject to time constraints. This possibility is beyond the
> scope of this discussion - and probably beyond the scope of human
> understanding at its present state of evolution.]
>
> Grahame
>
> _Wolf,_
>
> there was an interesting development in our understanding of
> the physics of gravity. About a hundred years ago it was the
> general opinion that gravity is the simplest and most
> fundamental force in physics. This may also have been the
> reason that gravity is a fundamental parameter in the
> definition of the Planck units. At present, however, the
> representatives of the German Einstein Institute say that
> gravity is the least understood and perhaps most complicated
> force.
>
> Newtonian gravity is still pretty simple but now we have learned
> more specifically that inertia is not just an intrinsic property a
> la N's 1st Law, but perhaps the result of a vector potential or a
> side effect of other forces like your theory.
>
> The idea to connect gravity in some way to the electric force
> comes up again and again. The reason is most probably that
> both follow the dependence of range of 1/r^2 . (But this
> dependence can be explained geometrically if we assume that
> forces are generally mediated by exchange particles.) The idea
> of Jefimenko that there is a cogravitation as a kind of
> different charge sign to make it compatible with electricity
> is a new and severe assumption. I find it better not to
> permanently introduce new - an unobserved - phenomena than to
> try to live with the existing ones (= Occam's razor).
>
>
> I agree and Jefimenko goes beyond adding a cross product force to
> Newton he also adds a gravitational force to the field since it
> contains energy and ends up with 5 forces. However Sciamma's
> vector potential explaining inertia is Jefimenko's main point.
>
> Einstein has described gravity as a geometrical phenomenon,
> changing the understanding of space and time. On the other
> hand Theodor Kaluza has irritated Einstein with his hint that
> any force in physics can be explained by a specific geometry
> of space and time. (Einstein has accepted that but was not
> happy with it.) So, why not go back to physics and to forces
> in gravity rather than using space-time.
>
> Yes I agree. It is best to remember that all theories and models
> are written drawn or imagined on a background space that is both
> fixed and meaningless as anything but a structural support. I
> Found it impossible to to imagine space time warping so from a
> heuristic necessity it is simply easier to imagine particles and
> forces between them. However there is clearly a tendency in
> physics to be proud of theories that no one understands.
>
> Regarding the instantaneous propagation of gravity: To my
> knowledge this was carefully investigated in past decades with
> the result that also gravity is limited to c. I do not go back
> to the details. Should there be new arguments which are not
> covered by the past discussions then this would be a good
> reason to investigate this case again. But are there new
> arguments?
>
> The fact that Newtonian action at a distance works and is used by
> astronomers and orbital space engineers with great success yet
> requires the speed of light to be infinite or at least several
> orders of magnitude larger than "c" has never to my knowledge been
> explained. It like the twin paradox and the inconsistency of the
> perihelion of Mercury precession is brought up and then ignored
> and brought up again by the next generation and then ignored.
>
> If we want progress in the realm of gravitation, I expect an
> answer to at least one question: what is the cause of the weak
> equivalence principle, i.e. the fact that all objects are
> having the same gravitational acceleration independent of
> their inertial mass. Newton's theory of gravity does not
> answer this, Einstein's does not answer it as well. Gravity
> has to answer it!
>
> I agree but does the gravitational vector potential i.e Mach's
> principle not answer this question?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 29.04.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>
> Wolf et al,
>
> You will note that my proposal re gravity in my
> recently-circulated paper, as the 'extended being' of
> spatially distributed entities that we (with our limited
> senses) perceive as localised 'particles', implicitly
> proposes that the 'propagation speed of gravity' is in
> fact infinite - since there is in actuality NO propagation
> involved, the 'effects of gravity' are in fact the
> consequences of those distributed entities ALREADY being
> present to some degree at every point in the cosmos. I.e.
> 'everything is everywhere', to put it in simple terms; as
> a 'physical massive object' moves (again, a simplistic
> term), the WHOLE of its extended being moves with it and
> is immediately in a position to manifest 'gravitational'
> effects of that object consistent with its changed
> position, no matter how far spatially removed (more
> simplistic concepts!) from what we perceive as the
> 'massive object' itself.
>
> This points to a far deeper truth - that 'locality' and
> 'time' are both over-simplifications of deeper concepts,
> foisted on us by an evolutionary process that's more
> interested that we (a) breed, (b) find lunch and (c) don't
> become lunch - than it is in us fathoming the underlying
> principles of cosmic structure.
>
> Best,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> *To:*af.kracklauer at web.de
> <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de> ; phys at a-giese.de
> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> ;
> general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Friday, April 28, 2017 11:11 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
> Al:
>
> I'm too concerned with gravity and charge as the
> fundamental characteristics of mater in classic
> physics to appreciate deeper explanations until the
> discrepancies or simpler questions have been answered.
>
> Is not Einstein's connection between gravity and space
> time based on the use of EM wave phase measurements
> that define space time? In other words masses interact
> with charges and EM propagation so that the definition
> of a meter and a second with which we measure space
> and time are the cause of the warping.
>
> Even more important for me right now is the question
> of the speed of gravity. I now had more of a chance to
> read Jefimenko's Gravitation and Cogravitation which
> Al recommended, where he expands on the idea that the
> equations correcting Newton's look more like EM with a
> gravitational scalar and vector potential and a Lorenz
> like force replacing newtons. In his chapter 20 he
> points out that the 43 seconds of arc precession of
> Mercury rather than being a proof of Einstein's theory
> is actually a cause for questioning the validity of
> Einstein's equations, Because Gerber's formula for
> the 43secnds was based upon planetary calculations
> based upon Newton's Action at a distance i.e. gravity
> goes the speed of infinity. Jefimenko points out that
> if Newton's theory was wrong and gravity is not
> instantaneous than if Einstein's theory explaning
> somthing wrong (the 43sec precession) is wrong and
> Einstein's theory coming up with 43 seconds actually
> proves Einstein's theory is wrong. Jefimenko
> calculates the value of the precession from his theory
> is 14 arc sec.
>
> If gravity propagates instantly we are talking about
> a completely different beast than Einstein's theory,
> and trying to explain an error that is assumed correct
> just leads to more errors although the errors may be
> self consistent.
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 at
> grahame at starweave.com <mailto:grahame at starweave.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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/20170507/8f23761d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list