Hi Chip,
I do agree that we, when developing a theory, should start with
something which is as fundamental as possible and derive as much as we
can as emergent quantities, the more the better as indication of a well
usable theory.
This is my goal as well. And here I have developed an opinion (or
position) which is a bit different from yours. Let me explain.
I do not follow the position that energy is fundamental. I have read
that some of our participants here have used this as an argument. There
are two arguments which I have to come to a different result: 1) Energy
is not always conserved. We know it from particle physics, particularly
if we use exchange particles which mediate forces. These exchange
particles can move from a source into the universe and if they meet a
partner (e.g. another charge) maybe after a very long time, they are
able to transfer energy. So they have to possess energy and in case of a
charge they carry energy away form the source which will in most cases
not come back. So a permanent violation of conservation. )And this is
not covered by the uncertainty relation.) And further in the context of
special relativity, there are cases of temporary violation if a transfer
of energy, momentum or whatever needs time to go from one object to the
other one.
2) I do not accept energy as fundamental because, using my model, I can
deduce the conservation of energy. But I can only deduce it in the cases
where no violation (as mentioned above) occurs. So this seems to fit
better to the physical reality than the assumption that conservation of
energy is a fundamental law.
You have mentioned the known relations: E=mc^2 , E=hv. These relations
are also not fundamental in my view as I can deduce them using my model.
Have you ever seen them deduced? Yes, Einstein has deduced E=mc^2 , but
the relation E=hv was never deduced to my knowledge, but both follow
from my model, the first one much easier than Einstein has done it, the
latter one the first time to my knowledge. Planck at least did not
deduce it. - The fact that a photon has energy is a matter of course,
it is a particle and energy is a normal property of a particle. A charge
in a field (of another charge) of course has energy. But a particle in
its own field does not as there is no force on it.
If it is said (as John Williamson does) that a charge has energy by
itself then one can ask easily: How can I use this energy? Or how
transfer this energy to another system? I do not know any case so that
this statement is theory in the bad sense as it can never be checked or
falsified.
When Maxwell developed his formalism, he did not have the understanding
of photons as carriers of the EM waves. This was introduced much later
by Einstein. So the understanding of Maxwell with respect to these
questions does not help.
If you are able to derive a charge from more fundamental objects, please
let us know. I know one argument where this may come from. In present
particle theory it is assumed that a charge is in fact compressed charge
density. And this compression process of course needs energy and the
result of it has energy. And there is another problem in present
understanding. As the electron is generally assumed to be point-like,
this compression energy must be extreme. It is not compatible with the
known or assumed particle properties.
But why believe this? Why not assume that a charge is an "atomic"
occurrence? I do not see a clear experimental evidence for one or the
other position, so why not take the assumption which makes physics easier?
Why to follow the Lorentzian view? In his view space is simple, just the
emptiness around us. Maybe this assumption is too simple to explain the
physical phenomena. But I am busy with this question since a long time,
and up to now I did not find any argument that this simple assumption
about space is insufficient. And time in his sense is a human concept to
explain oscillations. - This was also already argued by Chandra. -
All relativistic phenomena can be understood if following Lorentz, and
the understanding is much easier than with Einstein. And another
benefit: The problems of Dark Matter and Dark Energy do not exist in the
world of Lorentz. And those are generally said to be "the greatest
problems in present physics". Isn't this a clear indication?
I hope that I have something here where you can follow.
Albrecht
Am 12.03.2018 um 16:30 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Thank you.
>
> When we observe that charge possesses energy as John has pointed out,
> and we see that E=mc^2 , so that mass is also comprised of energy, and
> we observe that E=hv, and ω_E = ½ ε0 E^2 so that photons
> (electromagnetics) are comprised of energy. It leaves us with the
> consideration that actually energy itself may be more fundamental, and
> that charge, forces, mass, Planck’s constant, etc. are emergent
> properties, all caused by energy.
>
> There was a time when the objective of physics was to explain
> everything possible about the nature of our universe. So logically it
> would seem that we should be eventually able to identify the cause for
> all emergent properties (properties which are the result of energy or
> comprised of energy) like charge and mass.
>
> There has been an argument that we cannot know more, starting about
> the time of the Copenhagen Interpretation, and I completely disagree
> with this philosophy. There are so many different ways for us to
> gather information that we can absolutely learn more, if we try to
> assemble all we have studied, observed, and measured into a coherent
> model.
>
> So I have to conclude that a theory which begins with charge as
> fundamental is simply incomplete and a “shortcut” which moves us
> toward our objective, but does not reach the goal. Especially if the
> theory assumes that charge is fundamental and that charge does not
> contain energy.
>
> I find your model quite interesting, and have seen many comparisons
> and parallels between your model and the observable. But I have also
> been able to imagine a model where the principles are causal, and
> derived from a more fundamental basis. A model where charge, forces,
> momentum and mass are explained and are emergent properties.
>
> We have different perspectives and goals. Perhaps your theory meets
> your goals. But my objective is to understand what charge is, what
> particles are, what mass is, what causes the measurable
> electromagnetic fields, etc. And I finally have made some very good
> headway in this endeavor.
>
> There have been many theories proposed which are all based at least in
> part on the observables and known. We each choose what portions of
> the historical theories we want to believe and what we want to
> reject. But I felt too swayed by the opinion of others while
> reviewing our theoretical history, and decided to do a personal
> logical evaluation of what we observe and what we believe, and why we
> believe. What I found is that logically a more Lorentzian view of
> space and relativity is supportable by the evidence. And that we can
> explain much (perhaps all) of what we observe if we discard portions
> of popular theories which are actually logically arbitrary. It is
> somewhat surprising how simple much of it becomes.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 9:56 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> 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 elementary charge e_0 and the the
> constant 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.
>
> It 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
> <mailto: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 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/20180312/990665bd/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/20180312/990665bd/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/20180312/990665bd/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/20180312/990665bd/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/20180312/990665bd/attachment-0001.png>