Hi Chip,
sorry for the delay but I am just back from a physical conference here.
Thank you for the link to the papers about the Liénard-Wiechert
potential. I am presently anyway active to understand this but find it
still quite difficult. But will come back on it as soon as I understand
more.
You will find my comments to your consideration down in the text.
Am 16.03.2018 um 14:32 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Yes. See the attached for some references to the velocity of the
> Coulomb field (charge).
>
> Feynman found the speed appeared to be close to instantaneous, but
> tried to resolve the issue by using the “static field” approach, or
> the indefinite existence approach. Neither of which are sustainable
> under serious further scrutiny.
>
> As it turns out, since the force of charge drops off quickly with
> distance, and what we measure is the sum of all charges, so it would
> be quite difficult to communicate using charge. Even if we had a good
> controlled means of creating and destroying charge fields at will.
>
I would expect that creation and deletion of charges is not necessary to
modulate of field. You may build a dipole with a changing base, that
should generally work. But I am not sure about the behaviour at distance.
>
> You commented… /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?/
>
> //
>
> My problem is not with a bullet being able to travel through empty space.
>
> The problem I have is what does the “bullet” consist of in that sort
> of scenario?
>
In my view the bullet is an elementary charge. And a charge is in my
view an atomic object, which is the basic particle from which
everything in our physical world is built. As it is the most stable
institution which our world has.
>
> For me it seems a much more plausible explanation is that particles
> are made of energy and space. And that space has properties which
> describe the stability, creation, and destruction of particles made of
> energy.
>
Ido not find it plausible that energy is something elementary. Energy is
very variable. If an object has energy then this energy is different if
seen from another frame. Also relativistically the amount of energy
changes. All this does not happen to a charge. It is the same if seen
from any fame. It is not changed by relativistic transformations. From
this my conclusion is that charge is the most fundamental object in
physics.
>
> Another problem is the notion that charge can be mediated by virtual
> photons. First, mainstream physics admits that virtual photons are
> not photons. So what are they? And how is it that the phase and
> frequency of these “virtual photons” can automatically change so that
> charge is either attractive or repulsive, and they automatically
> adjust for all distances, changing phase and frequency so that they
> behave as they are supposed to in order to create what we measure of
> the charge field? This is such a complex and unlikely scenario that I
> simply don’t see it being a valid model for charge. It really seems
> ludicrous to me. I have run the math required for particles to be the
> mediators of fields. In classes, and textbooks, the problems created
> by this approach are generally ignored, and only the portions of such
> a scenario which fit the theory are discussed. That’s part of the
> reason they had to name them “virtual; photons”. But that set of logic
> simply does not work, in part because it removes the description of
> reasonable physical cause from this speculative approach.
>
Not only electrical charge but all forces are by present understanding
mediated by exchange particles, not by virtual particles. The difference
of both is that virtual particles (should they exist) only have a short
life according to the uncertainty relation of QM, whereas exchange
particles have to have an unlimited lifetime as the electric forces for
instance act up to infinity.
If one assumes that a charge permanently emits exchange particles to all
directions where the rate of emission reflects the value of the charge,
then it has some simple consequences. The distance dependency of 1/r^2
follows geometrically. And also the relativistic contraction of fields
is an easy consequence of it. (I have used this fact to deduce
relativistic deduction before I got the information that Oliver
Heaviside deduced it from Maxwell's equations.)
>
> You commented that time is a human concept. Yes. It is a method we
> have developed to create a metric for the serial nature of
> interactions and events. But that serial nature of events is not a
> human fabrication, it is the nature of the universe. So we choose to
> name this thing we observe as “time” and create means to measure it.
> That does not mean we invented the things which cause what we observe
> as time.
>
I agree that in case of two events both have a timely sequence. This
seems to be nature. But the understanding of a time /scale/ is a human
concept. - On the other hand there have been physicists who have started
to set up a physical theory without any use of time. This seemed to have
some chance.
>
> A similar explanation would then of course apply to the concept of
> energy. And to the concept of almost everything else we observe. The
> fact that we have found ways to incorporate these items into our
> thought processes does not make them our inventions, and does not make
> them less real.
>
I think that the natural rule in this case is the conservation of
momentum. Conservation of energy can be deduced from this in the cases
where it is appropriate. Conservation of energy is limited by QM
(uncertainty) and by special relativity where it can be temporarily
violated. In contrast to charge.
>
> Chip
>
Albrecht
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2018 7:20 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 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
> <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/20180325/1544d51c/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/20180325/1544d51c/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/20180325/1544d51c/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/20180325/1544d51c/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/20180325/1544d51c/attachment-0001.png>