Hi Chip,
I am very surprised about what you say about Feynman and according
experiments: the info that electric (maybe also other) fields move
unrestrictedly with respect to c. Can you give us a reference for that?
- I am surprised because if that is true and works in practise, it
should be possible to stablish communication links which are not
restricted to c. As far as I know this was never observed. And on the
other hand also in the mind of Feynman are electric forces mediated by
photons; and photons move in the general opinion at c.
I still think that energy and its conservation is a human concept, and
it is undoubtedly a useful concept. Like "time" is a human concept, also
undoubtedly a useful one. The conservation of energy (and so its
definition) was introduced historically when it was found that in the
conversion of mechanical motion to heat and vice versa this is a helpful
concept. And in this case (like in many others) it can be deduced.
To your last comment: If one assumes that a charge is an atomic thing -
like a bullet - then its stable existence is a simple consequence. Such
kind of bullet can move through empty space, why not?
Albrecht
Am 15.03.2018 um 18:39 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Thank you for taking the time and for the explanation.
>
> Feynman showed that the interaction of charge is, and must be,
> practically instantaneous. But this has been principally ignored.
>
> Experiments have been conducted which indicate Feynman was quite
> correct in those calculations. And these have been ignored, even
> though they are quite well done and compelling.
>
> Assuming that charge propagates at the speed of light is a popular
> belief, so popular in fact that items like the calculations and
> experiments listed above are ignored by mainstream physics. This is of
> course because of the influence that SR has had on the physics
> community. Every possible avenue is used to defend SR and to try to
> make the data fit SR, rather than accepting the evidence and adjusting
> portions of our theories as required.
>
> I know we agree regarding a more Lorentzian relativity, but I also
> think that charge “propagates” at speeds much faster than light, and
> that charge is NOT mediated by “particles”. And I feel, as Chandra
> has commented, that space is the container for all energy, and is a
> tension based medium.
>
> My problem with an empty space is that there is no means to explain
> the constitution of particles if space is empty. Particles must have a
> way to exist (properties of space in my view), which allow particles
> to form and behave as we observe.
>
> In that sort of view, there is no violation of the conservation of energy.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:51 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> I have to apologize to you - and to Wolf - that I am delayed to answer
> your mails. Next week I join a conference here where I plan to give
> four talks. That keeps me very busy.
>
> To the conservation of energy: I agree that this is fulfilled in the
> practical cases. But not in every case. My example of a charge which
> additionally interacts with another charge in the universe is a
> difficult example.
>
> Assume the case that an electron interacts with another one, maybe
> both are inside the same atom. That is an easy case and energy will be
> locally preserved. But assume another charge outside, then the
> reaction of the electron has to reflect that in order to conserve
> energy. Now assume that another charged object orbits the moon. Then
> at certain moments it moves towards the earth and at other moments
> away from the earth. The effect of its charge to our electron is
> different in both cases. This can in principle affect our interaction
> process, no problem so far. But the motion vector at which our
> electron will see this external charge is different from its true
> motion and position. The delay, which is about one second in the case
> of the mood, means a violation of the energy balance. So the
> conservation of energy is violated, at least for a limited time.
>
> But there may also be a charged particle which moves at very high
> speed, close to c, away from us. In this case our electron will cause
> an energy imbalance for a very long time, maybe forever. Conservation
> of energy needs - to be true and valid - the connection of all
> elements of the universe without any delay. And this is not the
> reality as we know as propagation of forces is restricted to c.
>
> Should the whole universe be a closed system then it can be assumed
> that energy is conserved globally (even though not testable). But it
> cannot be conserved locally as the local process does not get the
> information of the other influences in time - as I have written above.
>
> What is your problem with the picture of a particle?
>
> Your question how a frame in an empty space is realized is a good one.
> I have a concept for it, and I found that I am not alone with it. But
> I developed the following on my own.
>
> In this model the reference for the absolute frame is the speed of
> light. In elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c
> (Zitterbewegung) of the constituents of the particle. These
> constituents are mass-less. Forces are mediated and transferred by
> exchange particles which as well move at c and have no mass. (These
> will be the mediators you are looking for.) So every interaction
> between particles means that these constituents interact via the
> mass-less exchange particles, which means that it is an elastic
> interaction which only changes the direction of a particle but never
> its speed. That is a fundamental (and constant) type of exchange. In
> this way the speed of light will never change as long as only two
> objects of this kind interact.
>
> How was this unique speed caused? I think that it was during the first
> short time after the Big Bang. In that moment all these basic objects
> were extremely close together so that multiple interactions happened.
> And in this way the speed was aligned to each other; by multiple
> contacts. Later when the particle were at distance to each other, this
> process could not continue, so the speed was conserved.
>
> Constancy of c means here of course constancy with relation to a
> certain motion state. As it was understood by Lorentz. And this is
> most probably the motion state of the Big Bang.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 13.03.2018 um 13:09 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> The conservation of energy “law” is that the total energy of an
> isolated system remains constant.
>
> And that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
>
> Of course it is not possible to have a totally isolated system
> because we cannot prevent radiation and cannot prevent particles
> from interacting in some form.
>
> But I am not seeing any violation of the conservation of energy in
> your example. All of the energy still exists.
>
> In fact I see no evidence that energy can be either created or
> destroyed. Which is conservation of energy.
>
> I do feel that charge is a specific form of distortion of space.
> Induced by energy. A compression of sorts.
>
> The point particle concept is a quite naive and unworkable model
> for many reasons, and is just incorrect.
>
> But one thing is a question for me. How can you feel there is a
> fixed frame of space… if space itself is nothing?
>
> If there is nothing there, then there is no means in space to
> impose a fixed frame.
>
> I also believe that a more Lorentzian fixed frame is the correct
> definition of space.
>
> But I don’t see any way that space can have properties (like ε0
> and μ0), and a fixed frame, and still be totally empty.
>
> The basic concept of force at a distance, which has intrigued us
> for centuries, seems to hint that space cannot just be empty.
>
> So I feel that space itself is the mediator of charge, and all
> forces, and the fabric upon which all particles are built.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 2:40 PM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>
> mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6163&header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.gif
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6163&header=quotebody&part=1.1.3&filename=image002.gif
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> ^
>
> 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:
> mailbox:///C:/Users/AL/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/lthhzma2.default/Mail/pop3.strato-12.de/Inbox?number=6163&header=quotebody&part=1.1.4&filename=image003.png
> 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.
>
>
> part27.120D6C16.1FB64E2B at a-gieseTo
> 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 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/20180316/cfac7960/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/20180316/cfac7960/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/20180316/cfac7960/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/20180316/cfac7960/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/20180316/cfac7960/attachment-0001.png>