[General] Foundational questions Tension field stable particles
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Mar 6 22:15:02 PST 2018
Albrecht:
As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always the frame defined
by the observer , which is always the 1st person you, you cannot get out
of yourself and in that sense makes this frame a fixed frame. Each of us
lives in our own space and refers all our experiences and experimental
results back to that space
WE must discuss my contention that we are always looking through the
coordinate frame which is the Hilbert space defined by our detector
arrays - the error in SR pictures is that they show the observer riding
along with a coordinate frame and than assume the observer can see what
is out there including clock dials and rod lengths as though he were god
outside the material looking in. But the observer must be restricted to
look at a TV monitor inside the coordinate frame that displays the
result of detector interactions
Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic field. If there
are more than two charges moving in say three independent directions I
think there is no Lorenz transform that eliminates the magnetic field
for all the particles , Am I right on this?
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Einstein used indeed later in his life the word "ether", but in a
> different sense. He did not change his mind in the way that he
> permanently and finally refused the understanding that there exists a
> fixed frame in the world.
>
> But in his view space has properties. One property is the known
> assumption that space and space-time are curved. And Einstein tried
> for the rest of his life to find and to define more properties of the
> space in the expectation that the existence of fields can be deduced
> from those properties. Up to the end of his life he tried to find in
> this way a / the "Theory of Everything". He was, as we know, not
> successful with it.
>
> But he never gave up his denial of the possibility that there is a
> fixed frame. (I refer here particularly to the book of Ludwik Kostro,
> "Einstein and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly investigated
> everything what Einstein has said and published up to the end of his
> life.)
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>
>> Gentlemen
>>
>> Later in Einstein’s career he *reversed his opinion* about the “ether”.
>>
>> As Einstein pointed out, “/There Is an Important argument In favor of
>> the hypothesis of the ether. To deny the existence of the ether
>> means, in the last analysis, denying all physical properties to empty
>> space/”… and he said, “/the ether remains still absolute because its
>> influence on the inertia of bodies and on the propagation of light is
>> conceived as independent of every kind of physical influence./”
>>
>> But the physics community was already so attached to the idea that
>> space was empty that Einstein’s later comments on the subject have
>> been principally ignored.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
>> *To:* Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>;
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org; Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field stable
>> particles
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> I see no conflict between our understanding of magnetism and
>> coriolis forces and both are interpretation that can be created
>> or not by the way we look at phenomena.
>>
>> WE start to disagree what I because we agree want to look at the
>> physics of the observer as an integral and necessary part of how
>> phenomena are perceived. And this is where we should be focusing
>> our discussion. What assumptions are valid and what physics would
>> we develop if we change our assumptions?
>>
>> more comments added
>>
>> ... and some comments back.
>>
>> 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 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> my answers again in your text.
>>
>> Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> The Coriolis force as a surrogate for the Magnetic force
>> is a good example that shows we are talking about ttwo
>> different things. I was taught exactly what you repeated
>> below in Mr. Bray's physics class and did not believe it
>> then because when I take a ride on a Merry-go-Round I
>> feel a force that is real. Period.
>>
>> That is indeed correct. It is a real force. If we have a
>> hurricane on earth it is a result of the Coriolis force and
>> that is a real force. The point is, however, that it is not a
>> NEW force but the well known Newtonian inertial force; just
>> interpreted in a different way.
>>
>> The same with magnetism. Also magnetism shows a real force.
>> And that force is the electric force, but also in this case
>> interpreted in a different way.
>>
>> *OK*
>>
>> I do not care what you call it You can look at me from
>> many different angles and in many different ways but the
>> force I feel is real,
>>
>> Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a different way.
>>
>> *OK*
>>
>> What I am arguing and what I want you to be aware of is
>> that in the sentence "The Coriolis force is a
>> non-existent force." it is the name of the force that may
>> be the wrong name for the force I experience, but the
>> force is real.
>>
>> You are right, better wording would be "it does not exist as
>> a NEW force".
>>
>> All the examples I've give and let me add the Lorenz
>> Force F= E*q + B xV , where V my velocity.You think I
>> am arguing but I am not arguing that by moving at some
>> velocity you can make B disappear in your equation and by
>> moving at another velocity you can make V equal to zero
>> in your equation. I am arguing that you cannot make the
>> phenomena disappear. No matter how many theories you
>> invent and how many different names you invent. The
>> phenomena, the force I feel does not depend on your
>> theory. I and the situation I am in is an independent
>> reality. All you can do with Lorenz transformations is
>> shift the name of the force from magnatic to and
>> additional Coulonb component. Exactly the same way moving
>> from astationary observer at the center of the
>> Merry-go-Round shifts the name ov the force from
>> acceleration to Coreolis. Its the same force!
>>
>> True, there is a force. But only interpreted as something new
>> or additional, which is not the case.
>>
>> "To make magnetism disappear" does not mean that every force
>> disappears. It means that you can explain all what you
>> observe as Coulomb force.
>>
>> And one should be cautious in the practical case. In daily
>> physical practise we measure magnetism by use of a magnetic
>> dipole. But that is not the correct way. Correct is to use an
>> electric charge, measure the force and compare it to the
>> Coulomb force as visible from the actual state of motion.
>>
>> *OK*
>>
>>
>> I recommend again at the "Veritasium" video. It shows the
>> situation in a good and correct way.
>>
>> Unless (and here is where I am trying to get us to go)
>> one begins to believe and evoke the principles of quantum
>> theory or its marcro-scopic extension which I am trying
>> to develop.
>>
>> All this has nothing to do with quantum theory. It is one of
>> the sources of QM that physicists misinterpret classical
>> physical processes, lack an explanation and then divert to QM
>> seeking for an explanation, which is in those cases not
>> needed. But misleading.
>>
>> *So we agree until we get to this point*
>>
>> In those extensions the Newtonian, and Maxwellian
>> phenomena are true in the coordinate frame of the
>> observer BECAUSE the coordinate frame supplies the space
>> , now called Hilbert space in which those phenomena are
>> displayed to the observer. The observer IS the coordinate
>> frame and his observable phenomena occur within the space
>> defined by that coordinate frame. Everything you see is
>> seen in a space you create within the material from which
>> you are built.
>>
>> I personally do not see the space as being created by
>> anything. I keep my naive view that space is nothing than
>> emptiness and has no extra properties, Euclidean geometry
>> applies and is sufficient.
>>
>> Should I ever encounter an argument that this is not
>> sufficient, I am prepared to change my mind. But up to now it
>> was not necessary.
>>
>> *Does the fact that you simply are not recognizing that it is
>> your first person perspective in which "empty" space appears that
>> is your fundamental experience and any assumption that such
>> experience is due to a real space is Theory. Do you not ask how
>> is it that I am able to create the sensations I have. Are you and
>> your experiences not part of the reality and therefore must be
>> explained as part of your if you are to have a comprehensive
>> theory. AND there is no explanation in classic or relativistic
>> physics for the consciousness of the observer. One must begin to
>> think in Quantum terms*
>>
>> We know that our brain gives us wrong or biased information about
>> this world. Because our brains have developed to help us to survive,
>> not to have insights. But as a guide to help us to survive it can
>> only function if our understanding of the world is not too far away
>> from the way as the world in fact is.
>>
>> As far as I can see, as long as people try to understand this world
>> they (at least the scientists) know the problem that our brain and
>> our senses are misleading us. So this general problem of
>> understanding is in the mind of the people and was in their mind at
>> least since the time of ancient Greece. The only question is how to
>> start with an according investigation. One way to cope with this
>> problem is and was to build measurement tools which give us results
>> independent of our mood. These tools are continuously developed. And
>> we are of course not at the end of this development. But we can only
>> develop and correct our tools if there are results and hints which
>> give us informations on errors. Without those informations we are
>> playing with dice, and these dice do not have 6 numbers but many
>> thousand numbers. Does this playing make any sense for us?
>>
>> Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with the fact that our
>> understanding is related to our brain. This assumption that a
>> physical process depends on the consciousness of the observer has a
>> different origin. Heisenberg found himself completely unable and
>> helpless to understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he once said
>> that we have to go back to Plato and so he threw away all that
>> progress which Newton has brought into our physical understanding.
>> And on the other hand he neglected the proposal of Louis de Broglie
>> about the particle-wave question because at that time he was already
>> so much related to a mysterious view that he was no more able to
>> leave that. - At this point I agree to Einstein and de Broglie that a
>> mystification of physics will not give us progress.
>>
>> All the physics before Einstein was developed with the
>> assumption that there is an independent objective 3D
>> reality space ( and it should be a stationary ether) in
>> which all these objects appear. Einstein almost got it
>> right. There is no independent ether and it all depends
>> upon the coordinate frame. He did not take the next step.
>> We observers are the coordinate frame each of us
>> supplies the ether.
>>
>> Here my position is completely opposite. We do have an
>> independent ether as Lorentz has assumed it. And it is an
>> ether in the sense that the speed of light is related to a
>> fixed frame, and this does not cause any logical conflicts in
>> my understanding.
>>
>> *OK so you make the assumption that we do have an independent
>> ether. That is the old "naive reality" assumption and classic
>> mechanics and EM theory is built on this assumption. But quantum
>> theory is no longer built on this assumption.*
>>
>> Ether is not compatible with Einstein's understanding of relativity.
>> But also QM is not compatible with Einstein's relativity. So I do not
>> see any specific connection of QM to the absence of an ether. QM
>> simple does not to care.
>>
>> Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and not helpful. Lorentz
>> told him situations which by Lorentz view are not understandable
>> without ether. Einstein repeated his denial of an ether but he could
>> not answer the questions of Lorentz.
>>
>> *
>> So is the ether related to the fixed frame ? What ether is
>> attached to my fixed frame? Are they different ethers? Or is
>> there one ether, and we are all material objects moving in that
>> ether who just happen to be able to interpret some configurations
>> of material as space with objects moving in them. why should our
>> mental display of our experience be anything but one possible way
>> of building a mental display along a very very long path of
>> evolution. Do you really believe you are the pinnacle or end of
>> that process?*
>>
>> The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything more than the existence
>> of a fixed frame. And in the view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly
>> my view, the photons of our light are giving us this reference. All
>> photons move with the same - absolute - speed c, and this speed is
>> related to something. I guess to the position and motion state of the
>> Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we see a different red shift
>> depending on the direction. And we can quite easily calculate which
>> motion with respect to our earth we must have so that this red shift
>> becomes isotropic. This tells us what the reference of the ether most
>> probably is.
>>
>> Please read may Vigier X Paper again but ignore the first
>> part where I'm trying to show why SR is wrong - you
>> argued a lot with that. The real reason SR is wrong is
>> because Einstein developed it without recognizing that
>> his imagination supplied the background ether and his
>> rail car and .embankment observer where "RIDING ALONG"
>> with their coordinate frames observing Einsteins
>> imaginary space. They were not IN their own space.
>>
>> Can you please copy this essential part of your paper here? I
>> do not have it at hand in this moment.
>>
>> *SEE ATTACHED*
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> This is where we should return to our SR discussion and
>> properly add the observer to physics
>>
>> Special relativity gives us in my view not any reason to turn
>> to an observer dependent physics. For Einstein's view it is
>> correct, but for the Lorentzian it is not necessary.
>>
>> Ludwik Kostro, who participated in Vigier X, has written a
>> book about "Einstein and the ether". And he has - among other
>> sources - reprinted a letter exchange between Einstein and
>> Lorentz about the necessity of an ether. Lorentz described a
>> (Gedanken) experiment which in his view is not explainable
>> without ether. Einstein refused to except an ether, but he
>> did not present any arguments how this experiment can be
>> understood without it.
>>
>> I still think that Einstein's relativity has mislead the
>> physical world in a tremendous way. There are in fact
>> relativistic phenomena, but Einstein's way to treat them was
>> really bad.
>>
>> *I agree and this agreement is what gave us a common goal of
>> finding a better explanation.*
>>
>> Hopefully
>> Albrecht*
>>
>> *
>>
>> CHANDRA- there may be an abstract independent CTF but my
>> suggestion is that it may be the ether each of us is made
>> of and therefor may be thought to be stationary.
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> wolf
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>
>> 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 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>> I think that there is a simple answer to your concern
>> regarding magnetism. If you accept that magnetism is
>> not a real physical entity but a seeming effect then
>> there should not exist the logical conflicts which
>> you see.
>>
>> I think that the Coriolis force is a good example to
>> understand the situation: Assume that you are sitting
>> in a cabin without a view to the outside. Now assume
>> that this cabin is rotating very silently so that you
>> do not notice the rotation. You are sitting in a
>> chair in the middle on the rotational axis. Now you
>> throw a ball from your position away from you. You
>> will expect that the ball flies on a straight path
>> off. But you will observe that the ball flies on a
>> curved path. And what will be your explanation? You
>> will think that there must be a force which moves the
>> ball to the side. - This is the Coriolis force.
>>
>> But this force does not in fact exist. If there is an
>> observer on top of the cabin and can look into the
>> cabin, in his view the ball moves on a straight line.
>> And there is no reason for a force.
>>
>> The Coriolis force is a non-existent force. Similarly
>> the magnetic field is a non-existent field.
>>
>> Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I have a tremendous aversion to believing that
>> the observer (unless we are talking quantum
>> effects where measurement interferes with the
>> object measured ) can have any effect on the
>> independent “whatever it is” out there. But
>> physicists often confuse measurement results with
>> physical realities.
>>
>> Regarding “*The relative velocity between charges
>> does NOT determine the magnetic field.”*
>>
>> Jaxon Classical Electrodynamics p 136 states the
>> force between two current segments is oin
>> differential form
>>
>> d*F12* = - I1*I2 (*dl1* ● *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 *
>> |*X12*|^3
>>
>> now the current is charge q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and
>> q2**v2 = *I1**dl1 *substituting means the
>> magnetic force between the two charges is
>> dependent on the dot product between the two
>> velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
>>
>> Furthermore Goldstien Classical Mechanics talks
>> about velocity dependent potentials p19
>>
>> And we all know the magnetic force is F =~ v1 x
>> B12 while the magnetic field is dependent on v! ,
>> so the force is dependent on two velocities.
>>
>> Now your statement ‘*But the magnetic field
>> depends on the relative velocity between the
>> observer and the one charge and the observer and
>> the other charge. Where "observer" means the
>> measuring tool.” *Is certainly true because one
>> can always define one coordinate frame that moves
>> with velocity of the first charge and a second
>> coordinate frame that moves with the velocity of
>> the second charge. So in these two coordinate
>> frames each one would say there is no B field.
>>
>> However I see both charges in *one coordinate
>> frame* and that is how the experiments leading to
>> the force equations were conducted. So I question
>> whether your assumption that there are two
>> coordinate frames and I assume you would like to
>> connected by the Lorenz transforms reflects
>> physical reality.
>>
>> I have asked you in the previous mail NOT to argue
>> with coordinate frames because we should discuss
>> physics and not mathematics. Now you cite me with
>> statements about coordinate frames. How can I
>> understand that?
>>
>> However if you really insist to talk about frames:
>> The saying that two charges are in different
>> coordinate frames means that these charges are _at
>> rest_ in different coordinate frames. They can of
>> course be investigated by an observer (or a tool)
>> which resides in _one _frame.
>>
>> The equation from Jackson which you have cited above
>> is essentially the same as the one that I gave you in
>> the previous mail. And it says also that the magnetic
>> field depends on the _product _of both charges
>> involved, not on their difference.
>>
>> I reiterate the concept of fields even the
>> coulomb field is passed upon the measured force
>> between a test charge Qt and another charge Qn.
>> So that the total force on the test charge is
>>
>> F =~ SUM over all n ( Qt * Qn / Rtn^2 )
>>
>> And it is possible to introduce a field
>>
>> E = SUM over all n ( Qn / Rtn^2 )
>>
>> As that F= Qt * E
>>
>> Perfectly good mathematically. But to assume that
>> physically E is a property of space rather than
>> simply the sum of charge to charge interactions
>> that would happen if a test charge were at that
>> space is a counter factual. And not consistent
>> with the quantum photon theory.
>>
>> Why do you assume that a field is a property of
>> space? If you assume that space is nothing else than
>> emptiness then you will have all necessary results.
>> Why making things unnecessarily complicated?
>>
>> Which by the way I think is also wrong. Photons
>> are false interpretations of charge to charge
>> interactions.
>>
>> I do not remember that we talk here about quantum
>> theory. For this discussion at least it is not
>> needed. And regarding photons, I have explained very
>> detailed that photons - as I have measured them in my
>> thesis work - are particles with specific properties;
>> but clearly particles. You did not object to my
>> arguments but you repeat your statement that a photon
>> as a particle is a false interpretation. It would be
>> good to hear argument than only statements.
>>
>> that is for another discussion
>>
>> Which else discussion?
>>
>> best wishes
>>
>> wolf
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>
>> 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 2/26/2018 3:27 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> my comments and explanations in the text below.
>>
>> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> I think I understand your arguments since
>> this is what is generally taught, however
>> I have always been uncomfortable with the
>> statements involving “observer”.
>>
>> So I question your statement “The
>> different amount seen by the observer can
>> be calculated by the use of the
>> force-related Lorentz transformation -
>> from the frame of the electrons to the
>> frame of the observer.”
>>
>> Now ancient experiments discovered that
>> there are two reciprocal forces between
>> charges. The relative distance R gives
>> the Coulomb force F_E and the relative
>> velocity gives the Magnetic force F_B
>>
>> Now if these are independent entities
>> whose existence does not depend upon any
>> observation made by the observer (until
>> we get to quantum measurements) . /This
>> means the physics is fixed /and so are
>> the parameters. Any measurement made by
>> any coordinate frame when properly
>> processed for its own distortions will
>> result in the same parameters, so R,V,
>> F_B , F_E ^and yes the speed of light
>> must be constant.
>>
>> If the measurement results
>> differ either we do not have objective
>> measurement independent reality or else
>> there is an unaccounted artifact in the
>> measurement process.
>>
>> There is an error in your above arguments.
>> The relative velocity between charges does
>> NOT determine the magnetic field. But the
>> magnetic field depends on the relative
>> velocity between the observer and the one
>> charge and the observer and the other charge.
>> Where "observer" means the measuring tool.
>>
>> The entities are not independent in so far as
>> any observer will see them in a different
>> way. That is not a consequence of quantum
>> mechanics but very simply the consequence of
>> the fact that in a moving system the tools
>> change (like rulers contract and clocks are
>> slowed down) and so their measurement results
>> differ from a tool measuring while being at
>> rest. This is the reason that we need a
>> Lorentz transformation to compare physical
>> entities in one moving frame to entities in
>> another moving frame.
>>
>> I and QM claims there is no objective
>> measurement independent reality.
>>
>> That may be the case but has nothing to do
>> with our discussion here.
>>
>> Lorenz assumed the coordinate frame
>> dilates and shrinks so that when raw
>> measurements are made and no correction
>> is applied we may not observe a magnetic
>> field but instead a different Coulomb
>> field so that the actual result on the
>> object measured remains the same only the
>> names of the causes have been changed.
>>
>> You are permanently referring to coordinate
>> frames. But we are treating here physical
>> facts and not mathematical ones. So
>> coordinates should be omitted as an argument
>> as I have proposed it earlier.
>>
>> Now consider looking at the same two
>> charges from an arbitrary coordinate
>> frame. then in that frame the two charges
>> will have wo velocities V1 and V2 but
>> there will always be a difference V
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> ^
>>
>> I contend that it does not matter what
>> frame you chose cannot get rid of the
>> relative velocity. The only way you can
>> get rid of the magnetic field is if there
>> was no relative velocity in the first
>> palace. And there never was a magnetic
>> field in the physics.
>>
>> As soon as the observer moves in the same
>> frame, i.e. with the same speed vector as one
>> of the charges, he does not see a magnetic
>> field. In the deduction of the magnetic field
>> which I have attached (from a talk at a
>> conference last year) the magnetic force is
>> defined by the equation:
>>
>> where v and u are the speeds of two charges,
>> q1 and q2, , with respect to the observer. y
>> is the distance and gamma the Lorentz factor
>> in the set up shown.
>>
>> Therefore your further conclusion “As
>> soon as an observer moves with one
>> charge, i.e. he is at rest with respect
>> to the frame of one of the charges, then
>> there is no magnetic field for him.” Is
>> only true if there was no magnetic field
>> in the first place, a very special case.
>>
>> We must be very careful not to confuse
>> the actual physics in a situation with
>> the way we look at it.
>>
>> I guess that you know the Coriolis force.
>> This force is somewhat similar to magnetism.
>> It is in effect for one observer but not for
>> another one depending on the observer's
>> motion. And there is nothing mysterious about
>> it, and also quantum mechanics is not needed
>> for an explanation.
>>
>> In your logic you would have to say: If there
>> is no Coriolis force then there is no
>> inertial mass. But that is clearly not the case.
>>
>> If we apply the same analysis to the
>> Michelson Morley experiment I think we
>> will also find that there never was a
>> fringe shift in the physics. The physics
>> states charges interact with other
>> charges, basta. Introducing fields and
>> then attributing what has always been a
>> summation of many charge effects on one
>> test charge onto a property of empty
>> space is simply a convenient mathematical
>> trick that hides the physical reality.
>>
>> The MM experiment is easily explained by the
>> fact that there is contraction in the
>> direction of motion. Nothing more is needed
>> to explain the null-result. In the view of
>> Einstein space contracts and in the view of
>> Lorentz the apparatus contracts as the
>> internal fields contract. And the latter is a
>> known phenomenon in physics.
>>
>> I further submit this as an argument that
>> mass and charge are fundamental physics
>> and if there is to be a CTF it is the
>> tension that holds mass and charge
>> together when electro-magentic forces
>> operating on charge densities and
>> gravito-inertial forces operating on mass
>> densities are not balanced and pulls mass
>> and charge apart. I further submit the
>> the resulting fluctuations in the
>> mass-charge densities leads to CTF
>> propagating patterns that are an
>> ontologically defensible interpretation
>> of Schroedingers Wave function.
>>
>> An indication that mass is not fundamental is
>> the fact that mass can be converted into
>> energy. On the other hand charge cannot be
>> converted into energy; this can be taken as
>> an argument that it is fundamental.
>>
>> Anything still controversial? Then please
>> explain.
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Tell me why I’m wrong
>>
>> 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 2/23/2018 6:51 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> If two electrons move side by side,
>> the main force between them is of
>> course the electrostatic one. But
>> there is an additional contribution
>> to the force which is measured in the
>> frame of an observer at rest (like
>> the one of Millikan). In the frame of
>> the moving electrons (maybe they
>> belong to the same frame) there is
>> only the electrostatic force, true.
>> The different amount seen by the
>> observer can be calculated by the use
>> of the force-related Lorentz
>> transformation - from the frame of
>> the electrons to the frame of the
>> observer.
>>
>> If the oil-drop chamber is in steady
>> motion this has primarily no
>> influence. Important is the motion
>> state of the observer. If the
>> observer is at rest with respect to
>> the moving oil-drops (and so of the
>> electrons), he will notice a
>> contribution of magnetism. Any motion
>> of the chamber does not matter for
>> this fact.
>>
>> In general magnetism is visible for
>> an observer who is in motion with
>> respect to both charges under
>> consideration. As soon as an observer
>> moves with one charge, i.e. he is at
>> rest with respect to the frame of one
>> of the charges, then there is no
>> magnetic field for him.
>>
>> Your example of two compass needles
>> is a more complex one even if it does
>> not look so. To treat this case
>> correctly we have to take into
>> account the cause of the magnetism of
>> the needle, that means of the
>> circling charges in the atoms (in
>> Fe). If we would do this then - seen
>> from our own frame - both groups of
>> charges are moving, the charges in
>> the conductor and also the charges in
>> the needle's atoms. So as both are
>> moving with respect to the observer,
>> this is the cause for a magnetic
>> field between both objects.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 22.02.2018 um 21:02 schrieb
>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> Albrecht: Your point is well
>> taken. Not being expert in
>> magnetism, I need to spend more
>> time on this issue.
>>
>> However, let me pose a question
>> to think.
>>
>> If two electrons are trapped in
>> two side by side but separate
>> Millikan oil drops, the two
>> electrons feel each other’s
>> static E-field, but no magnetic
>> field. If the oil-drop chamber
>> was given a steady velocity,
>> could Millikan have measured the
>> presence of a magnetic field due
>> to the moving electrons
>> (“current”), which would have
>> been dying out as the chamber
>> moved further away? This
>> experiment can be conceived in
>> many different ways and can be
>> executed. Hence, this is not a
>> pure “Gedanken” experiment. I am
>> sure, some equivalent experiment
>> has been done by somebody. Send
>> me the reference, if you can find
>> one.
>>
>> Are two parallel current carrying
>> conductors deflecting magnetic
>> needles (undergraduate
>> experiment) different from two
>> independent electrons moving
>> parallel to each other?
>>
>> I have just re-phrased Einstein’s
>> example that you have given below.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22,
>> 2018 2:26 PM
>> *To:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General]
>> Foundational questions Tension
>> field stable particles
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>> I like very much what you have
>> written here. Particularly what
>> you say about "time" which
>> physically means oscillations.
>> That is what one should keep in
>> mind when thinking about relativity.
>>
>> However in one point I have to
>> object. That is your judgement of
>> the parameter µ. I think that it
>> is a result from the historical
>> fact that magnetism was detected
>> long time earlier than
>> electricity. So magnetism plays a
>> great role in our view of physics
>> which does not reflect its role
>> there. We know since about 100
>> years that magnetism is not a
>> primary phenomenon but an
>> apparent effect, a side effect of
>> the electric field which is
>> caused by the finiteness of c. If
>> c would be infinite there would
>> not be any magnetism. This is
>> given by the equation c^2 =
>> (1/ϵµ)which you have mentioned.
>> This equation should be better
>> written as µ = (1/c^2 ϵ) to
>> reflect this physical fact, the
>> dependency of the magnetism on c.
>>
>> The symmetry between electricity
>> and magnetism is suggested by
>> Maxwell's equation. These
>> equations are mathematically very
>> elegant and well usable in
>> practice. But they do not reflect
>> the physical reality. Easiest
>> visible is the fact that we have
>> electrical monopoles but no
>> magnetic monopoles. Einstein has
>> described this fact by saying:
>> Whenever an observer is in a
>> magnetic field, he can find a
>> motion state so that the magnetic
>> field disappears. - This is as we
>> know not possible for an electric
>> field.
>>
>> I think that we have discussed
>> this earlier. Do you remember?
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 21.02.2018 um 00:00 schrieb
>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>>
>> /“We nee//d a geometry in
>> which both space and time are
>> curved back on themselves to
>> provide a donut in which the
>> forces Fem, Fgi, Fcm,Fmc are
>> self contained eigen states
>> at each action quanta. /
>>
>> /Does any of this suggest a
>> tension field you might be
>> thinking about??”/
>>
>> Yes, Wolf, we need to model
>> mathematically the “twists
>> and turns” of different
>> intrinsic potential gradients
>> embedded in CTF (Complex
>> Tension Field) to create
>> stationary self-looped
>> oscillations
>> (*/field-particles/*).
>> Maxwell achieved that for the
>> propagating linear
>> excitations using his
>> brilliant observations of
>> using the double
>> differentiation – giving us
>> the EM wave equation. We need
>> to find non-propagating
>> (stationary – Newton’s first
>> law) self-looped oscillations
>> – the in-phase ones will be
>> stable, others will “break
>> apart” with different
>> life-times depending upon how
>> far they are from the
>> in-phase closed-loop
>> conditions. The successes of
>> the mathematical oscillatory
>> dynamic model could be judged
>> by the number of predicted
>> properties the theory can
>> find for the
>> */field-particles,/* which we
>> have measured so far. The
>> physical CTF must remain
>> stationary holding 100% of
>> the cosmic energy.
>>
>> However, I would not
>> attempt to keep the primacy
>> of Relativity by trying to
>> keep the Space-Time 4-D
>> concept intact. If we want to
>> capture the ontological
>> reality; we must imagine and
>> visualize the potential
>> */foundational/* physical
>> process and represent that
>> with a set of algebraic
>> symbols and call them the
>> primary parameters of
>> “different grades”. During
>> constructing mathematical
>> theories, it is of prime
>> importance to introduce
>> consciously this concept of
>> “primary”, vs. “secondary”,
>> vs. “tertiary”, etc.,
>> physical parameters related
>> to any observable physical
>> phenomenon. The physical
>> parameter that dictates the
>> core existence of an entity
>> in nature should be
>> considered as primary.
>> However, it is not going to
>> be easy because of the
>> complexities in the different
>> interaction processes –
>> different parameters take key
>> role in transferring the
>> energy in different
>> interactions. Besides, our
>> ignorance is still
>> significantly broad compared
>> to the “validated” knowledge
>> we have gathered about our
>> universe. Here is a glaring
>> example. νλ = c = (1/ϵµ). If
>> I am doing atomic physics, ν
>> is of primary importance
>> because of the quantum
>> resonance with ν and the QM
>> energy exchange rule is “hν”.
>> “λ” changes from medium to
>> medium. If I am doing
>> Astrophysics, ϵ and µ for
>> free space, are of primary
>> significance; even though
>> people tend to use “c”, while
>> missing out the fundamental
>> roles of ϵ and µ as some of
>> the core building blocks of
>> the universe. Funny thing is
>> that the ϵ and µ of free
>> space were recognized well
>> before Maxwell synthesized
>> Electromagnetism.
>>
>> With this background, I want
>> underscore that the “running
>> time, “t” is of critical
>> importance in our formulation
>> of the dynamic universe. And,
>> yet “t’ is not a directly
>> measurable physical parameter
>> of any object in this
>> universe. What we measure is
>> really the frequency, or its
>> inverse, the oscillation
>> periods of different physical
>> oscillators in this universe.
>> So, frequency can be dilated
>> or contracted by controlling
>> the ambient physical
>> parameter of the environment
>> that surrounds and INFLUENCES
>> the oscillator. The running
>> time cannot be dilated or
>> contracted; even though
>> Minkowsky introduced this
>> “dilation” concept. This is
>> the reason why I have been
>> pushing for the introduction
>> in physics thinking the
>> Interaction Process Mapping
>> Epistemology (IPM-E).
>>
>> Chandra.
>>
>> *From:*General
>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>> *Sent:* Monday, February 19,
>> 2018 10:56 PM
>> *To:*
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General]
>> Foundational questions
>> Tension field stable particles
>>
>> Candra:
>>
>> Let’s consider your tension
>> filed is a medium underlying
>> the experience of space
>> composed of charge and mass
>> density spread out in the
>> cross-section of a time
>> loop.. Coordinate frame cells
>> of /small enough/ sizes can
>> be described by constant
>> enough mass and charge
>> densities in each cell. For
>> small enough cells the mass
>> and charge values
>> concentrated at their centers
>> may be used in stead of the
>> densities. The resulting
>> field of center values can
>> take any pattern that
>> satisfies the extended
>> dAlambert principle. Besides
>> the classic electro-magnetic
>> Fem and gravito-inertial
>> force Fgi I postulate forces
>> tat hold charge and mass
>> together Fcm, Fmc. This
>> condition assures mass charge
>> centers in each cell appear
>> at locations of balanced
>> forces. Each pattern which
>> satisfies this condition
>> represents a static state of
>> the loop in which the
>> patterns are fixed for the
>> lifetime of the loop.
>>
>> **
>>
>> *The Charge-Mass Separation
>> Vector and Equilibrium States*
>>
>> The physical size of the
>> space is its volume. The
>> volume (Vol) of space is the
>> sum of the infinitesimal
>> volumes dVol of each of the
>> cells composing that space
>> “Vol = ∫_all space dVol”.
>> These infinitesimal volumes
>> are calculated from the
>> mass-charge density
>> extensions in each cell when
>> viewed externally as shown in
>> figure 4.3-3a . The physical
>> volume depends upon the mass
>> charge separation pattern of
>> the equilibrium state the
>> system being modeled exists in.
>>
>> In CAT the
>> extension of a cell can be
>> calculated as follows. In
>> each cell the distance
>> between the center of charge
>> and mass is a vector d*ζ.*
>> The projection of this vector
>> onto the degrees of freedom
>> directions available for the
>> charge and mass to move in
>> the generalized coordinate
>> space allows us to expansion
>> this vector as,
>>
>> Eq. 4.3-1 *dζ =* dζ_t *∙u_t *
>> + dζ_x *∙u_x *+ dζ_y *∙u_y *+
>> dζ_z *∙u_z +…* dζ_f *∙u_f +…,*
>>
>> **where the *u_f *’s are the
>> unit vectors. A space limited
>> to Cartesian 3-space is
>> characterized by three x,y,z
>> directions, but CAT models a
>> generalized space that
>> encompasses all sensor
>> modalities not only the
>> optical ones.
>>
>> The volume of a
>> cell calculated from the
>> diagonal expansion vector
>> “*dζ”* by multiplying all non
>> zero coefficients,
>>
>> Eq. 4.3-2
>> dVol = dζ_t *∙*dζ_x *∙*dζ_y
>> *∙*dζ_z *∙…∙*dζ_f *∙… .*
>>
>> The shape of this
>> volume is determined by the
>> direction of the expansion
>> vector which in turn is
>> determined by the direction
>> and strength of forces
>> pulling the charge and mass
>> apart. The direction of pull
>> depends upon the number of
>> dimensions available in the
>> generalized coordinates of
>> the media. The forces must be
>> in equilibrium but exact
>> equilibrium pattern depends
>> upon which global loop
>> equilibrium state “Ζ” the
>> event being modeled is in.
>>
>> In the simplest
>> equilibrium state the masses
>> and charges are collocated.
>> This implies the internal
>> forward propagating in time
>> forces F_cm ,F_mc , and
>> backward propagating in time
>> force F_mc *,F_cm * are zero,
>> and if there are no internal
>> force pulling the charges and
>> masses together then sum of
>> the remaining exterior
>> gravito-electric forces
>> pulling the charge and mass
>> apart must separately be zero
>> precisely at the collocation
>> point. A trivial condition
>> that satisfies these
>> equations is when all forces
>> are zero. In this case there
>> is no action in the media and
>> no action for expanding the
>> coordinate frame defining a
>> volume of space. We are back
>> to a formless blob of zero
>> volume, where all charges and
>> masses are at the same point.
>> This is the absolute ground
>> state of material, one level
>> of something above nothing.
>> The big bang before the
>> energy of action flow is added.
>>
>> To exemplify the methods we
>> consider an equilibrium state
>> of a single isolated cell
>> whose only degree of freedom
>> is the time direction. This
>> means the volume in all space
>> directions are
>> infinitesimally small and the
>> volume can be considered a
>> single line of extension
>> “ΔVol = ΔT_w = ∫dζ_t “ along
>> the time direction as shown
>> in the god’s eye perspective
>> of figure 4.3-6. In this
>> situation we can consider
>> charges and masses to be
>> point particles. Forces as
>> well as action can only
>> propagate along the material
>> length of the line time line
>> represented in space as “Qw”.
>> We now list the sequence of
>> changes that can propagate
>> through around the
>> equilibrium positions
>> indicated by numbers in
>> parenthesis.
>>
>> (1)The upper charge is pushed
>> from its equilibrium position
>> (filled icon) forward along
>> the time line
>>
>> (2)It exerts a force “Fem” on
>> the left charge pushing it
>> forward while feeling a
>> reaction force “Fem*” that
>> retards it back to its
>> equilibrium position
>>
>> (3)While the left charge is
>> moved from equilibrium it
>> exerts an internal “Fcm”
>> force on the bottom mass
>> while feeling a reaction
>> force “Fcm*” which returns
>> it to equilibrium.
>>
>> (4)While the bottom mass is
>> moved from equilibrium it
>> exerts a force “Fgi” on the
>> right mass while feeling a
>> reaction force “Fgi*” which
>> returns it to equilibrium.
>>
>> (5)While the right mass is
>> moved from equilibrium it
>> exerts a force “Fmc” on the
>> upper charge while feeling a
>> reaction force “Fmc*” which
>> returns it to equilibrium. We
>> are now back to (1).
>>
>> If the system is isolated
>> there is no dissipation into
>> other degrees of freedom and
>> the oscillation continues to
>> move as a compression wave
>> around the “Qw” time line
>> circumference forever. The
>> graph however is static and
>> shows a fixed amount of
>> action indicated by the
>> shaded arrows around the time
>> line. Motion in “block”
>> models is produced by the
>> velocity of the observer or
>> model operator as he moves
>> around the time line. From
>> our god’s eye perspective an
>> action density is permanently
>> painted on the clock dial and
>> thereby describes an total
>> event. The last degree of
>> freedom events are rather
>> trivial
>>
>> We need a
>> geometry in which both space
>> and time are curved back on
>> themselves to provide a donut
>> in which the forces Fem, Fgi,
>> Fcm,Fmc are self contained
>> eigen states at each action
>> quanta.
>>
>> Does any of this suggest a
>> tension field you might be
>> thinking about??
>>
>> 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 1/24/2018 7:20 PM,
>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>>
>> 1. Yes, I have submitted
>> an essay. FQXi has not
>> sent the approval link yet.
>>
>> 2. Replacement of our
>> SPIE conf. Without a
>> supporting infrastructure
>> to replace SPIE-like
>> support, it is very
>> difficult to manage. I
>> will try NSF during the
>> last week of May. Do you
>> want to start negotiating
>> with some out-of-box
>> European groups?
>>
>> 3. Re-starting afresh
>> from the bottom up is the
>> only way to start
>> re-building a unified
>> field theory. It is
>> futile to force-fit whole
>> bunch of different
>> theories that were
>> structured differently at
>> different states of human
>> cultural epoch.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Jan 24, 2018, at 6:08
>> PM, Wolfgang Baer
>> <wolf at nascentinc.com
>> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>> Just rereading your
>> 2015 paper "Urgency
>> of evolution..."
>>
>> I love the sentiment
>> " This is a good time
>> to start iteratively
>> re-evaluating and
>> restructuring all the
>> foundational
>> postulates behind all
>> the working theories"
>>
>> Did you write a paper
>> for FQXi?
>>
>> I sent one in
>> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>>
>> Is there any chance
>> to get a replacement
>> for the SPIE
>> conference, one that
>> would expand the
>> questions
>>
>> beyond the nature of
>> light?
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish
>> to receive
>> communication from
>> the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General
>> Discussion List at
>> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?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 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 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 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/20180306/c61de1be/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 778 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180306/c61de1be/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 934 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180306/c61de1be/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5404 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180306/c61de1be/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180306/c61de1be/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list