[General] Photon
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Mon Mar 12 09:16:06 PDT 2018
"Classical Electrodynamics" refer to Maxwell. - Maxwell's theory is an
elegant formalism well usable for engineers. But based on a physical
understanding which no longer today's physical understanding. Simple
example: Maxwell has this symmetry between electrical and magnetic
fields. Since the time when we understood relativity, we know that this
is incorrect physics as magnetism is not an own charge but a
(relativistic) side effect of the electric force. I did not find this
knowledge in "Jackson".
Zitterbewegung is in conflict with classical electrodynamics. But existent.
We have a lot of open problems in physics. There is Dark Matter, Dark
Energy, the vacuum catastrophe. If we do nothing than repeat again and
again what is written in the old text books, these problems will never
be solved. We need new investigations, new thinking in order to have
progress. And I understand this discussion forum as an intention to find
the weaknesses of present understanding.
To take "Jackson" not as a help for engineers but as fundamental and
correct understanding of physics, is the way to conserve the problems. I
have given some ideas (and an extremely well working particle model with
results of high precision) which are in no conflict with experiments and
observations. And the latter should be the measure for confidence.
Albrecht
Am 12.03.2018 um 13:52 schrieb John Williamson:
> Just for further info ...
>
> There was also some discussion about the field earlier. Did not want
> to get involved at the time as was too busy and this stuff is anyway
> well-known from undergraduate textbooks.
>
> The electromagnetic field has six components. A pure charge with all
> components stationary in some frame has three of these components zero
> in that frame only. One is left, then with just three components
> non-zero (and not four as for a four-vector). In any other frame there
> is an associated magnetic field. The transformation equations for
> such a field (of a moving charge distribution) are well known (see.
> e.g. Jackson "Classical Electrodynamics"). There is an enormous
> literature on this and people who make things work really know how to
> do it. Please do not assert things that are just ignorant!
>
> Regards, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of John Williamson [John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 12:32 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Sorry but that is just wrong: the energy density in the electric filed
> is 0.5 epsilon times the electric field squared. This is just from
> elementary text books. The integra; energy for the elctric field is
> what you use to calculate the minimum charge radius for the electron
> (the classical radius). Just look it up!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Albrecht Giese [phys at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 12:10 PM
> *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]
>> on behalf of Chip Akins [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; Albrecht Giese
>> <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
>> <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 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/20180312/9a483001/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/20180312/9a483001/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/20180312/9a483001/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/20180312/9a483001/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/20180312/9a483001/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list