Hi Chip,
every theory in physics has to start at/with some basics. The basics in
my model are charges. ("The world is built by charges"). So there is no
deduction of charges from anything else as they are the basics. And I
have two charges: the electric charge and the strong charge. The
electric charge is described by the expression e_0 *epsilon. And the
strong charge is described by the expression h*c. (It has historical
reasons that it is connected to c as Planck did not have this
understanding).
About the other forces: The weak force is in my view in fact the strong
force but the according reactions have a very small coupling. If you
want, I can explain why the coupling is so weak. And gravitation is in
fact not a force on its own but is a side effect of the other forces,
mainly the strong force. The mechanism of this force causes the weakness
of gravity and the fact that ii is only attracting. This also explains
the phenomenon of Dark Matter. But details perhaps not now and here.
But thanks for your interest and your questions.
Albrecht
Am 12.03.2018 um 13:24 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> I think you also have to assume a force between the two particles in
> your model besides just h and the elementary charge.
>
> This is indeed a very interesting model, but it does not explain
> charge, nor does it explain the cause for Planck’s constant. Please
> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 7:11 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi John and Chip and all,
>
> sorry to object. A charge can have lightspeed and physics have cases
> of this.
>
> We only know elementary particles with charge, which are having mass.
> For these particles it is of course true that they cannot reach c. But
> if we assume a charge alone and separate from mass, it does not have
> energy on its own, and so not any mass. There is no physical rule that
> they must have mass.
>
> Example is the Zitterbewegung of the electron. It means a permanent
> motion at c of the internal charge.
>
> According to David Hestenes, the Zitterbewegung of the charge (and so
> at c) is the cause of the magnetic moment of e.g. the electron.
>
> And according to my particle model the sub-particles of the electron
> (and of other particles), which are massless, permanently move at c.
> From this mechanism not only the Bohr magneton follows exactly
> (without any need for QM). Also the mass of the electron follows from
> it with high precision (almost 10^-6 ). And this works without any new
> parameters or any adaptation. The only parameters in this model are
> Planck's constant and the elementary charge e_0 , nothing more. Isn't
> this a proof for a model?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 12.03.2018 um 08:19 schrieb John Williamson:
>
> Dear all,
>
> You cannot have a charge at lightspeed. A charge is an electric
> field divergence. It therefore always has a (rest) mass associated
> with it - the integral energy in the electric field in the frame
> at which the charge is at rest. A charge at lightspeed therefore
> has infinite energy and is not physical.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Regards, JGW.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
> on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:12 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Richard
>
> Question. In your helical model of the photon is each half of the
> photon an elementary charge or half an elementary charge?
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2018 10:00 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Albrecht
> Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
> stable particles
>
> Albrecht
>
> Answers below
>
> I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my cognitive
> Action Theory Book for Routledge press. I think a good case can be
> made for considering ourselves to be living inside a black hole of
> a universe consisting of our own material. Our own material is
> the physical phase of a self explanatory/measurement activity
> cycle (A la Wheeler) and thereby generates its own space. In such
> a space all the EM effects of Maxwell and Lorentz would be valid
> by self consistency, since such a Universe runs at its own time
> rate and contains its own 1st person observer , which is YOU. I'm
> looking for readers and comments from interested parties. Its not
> trivial. Chapter 4 and appendices are about 100 pages since this
> is new action based physics.
>
> I am sending appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes the case
> that the applicability of Calculus to physical reality is limited
> and the failure to understand these limits leads to conceptual
> errors such as the concept of a space time continuum. I think I am
> following the kind of reassessment of our scientific methods
> Chandra is advocating.
>
> let me know what you think
>
> 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 3/8/2018 10:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> I am going to also answer your other mail. But this one first.
>
> Am 07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> 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
>
> Following Einstein it is true that every observer, which means
> every measuring tool, refers to his/its own space. But
> following Lorentz the space is universal. The measurement
> tools are cheating the observer by hiding the difference
> between the different motion states.
>
> By universal do you mean every observer has his own space
> experience or do you mean there is an independent observer
> independent space out there ?
>
> 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
>
> Please do not overlook that the so called "Hilbert space" is
> not a physical space but a mathematical tool to describe
> vectors in a convenient way.
>
> Albrecht I keep trying to make progress by suggesting new ways to
> look at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong because i am not
> conforming to the old way of looking at things. Hilbert space is
> describe as a mathematical tool in every text book on Quantum
> Mechanics I'm fully aware of that but I also believe this is a
> limited and restrictive interpretation. If you actually examine
> actual experiments from simple photon polarzation measurements
> involving two state to comlex position measurements involving a
> spectrum of detectors in a bubble chaber you will notice that the
> mathematical Hilbert space is always the the detector cell
> "through which we look" -by that I mean into which we project the
> interpretation of the measurement interactions recorded on our
> side of the detector cells.
>
> If we follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all measures
> like clocks and rods change as soon as we move with relation
> to the basic fixed frame. But we know the changes (which is
> Lorentzian RT) and can compensate for them to a certain degree.
>
> I agree wth that as long as you realize that this basic fixed
> frame is defined by the material from which the observer - in the
> end always YOU is built.
>
> 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?
>
> This is a good question, and I have an idea for this. But I
> did not make a quantitative calculation.
>
> I think that also in this case a motion state can be found
> where a magnetic field disappears. And I base this on the
> following consideration:
> Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be caused
> by one electric charge like in the standard case which has the
> appropriate motion state. Because also for magnetic fields a
> superposition is possible. How can the state of this related
> single electric charge be determined? Assume you have such
> field then you take an (electric) test charge. And then you
> measure the force on this test charge if it is at rest with
> respect to your frame. Then you move this charge in arbitrary
> directions and determine the Lorentz force depending on the
> three possible directions in space. So you have at least 4
> measurements, which is the force at rest and at the three
> dimensions of the magnetic field. Now you can determine the
> value and the motion state of the single electric charge which
> will cause the same measurement. And with respect to this
> single charge you have the situation which we have discussed
> before, which means you can find an own motion state for which
> the magnetism disappears.
>
> I think what you are saying is that the magnetic field of all the
> charges can be vector summed into one composite field, and this
> field can duplicated by a substitute average source charge moving
> in the
> appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two charge
> problem to which a Lorenz transformation is applied. I have not
> done the calculation but my guess is such a scheme only works
> under the point particle assumption since but the local magnetic
> field environment around a test charge would not be duplicated.
> However in any case it seems one wuld go through the use of
> magnetic forces in order to make them disappear. Why bother wy not
> simply accept the fact that bith gravity and electric forc
> categories have a range and a velocity dependence , and in fact
> possibly acceleration and all the derivatives - it just seems easier.
>
> 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>
>
> Albrecht
>
> 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>
> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>;
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> <mailto: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 <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 <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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180312/e29bfafe/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/20180312/e29bfafe/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/20180312/e29bfafe/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/20180312/e29bfafe/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180312/e29bfafe/attachment-0001.png>