Wolf,
I have really to apologize that I am answering so lately. I was during
the last weeks very busy with the preparation for the Physical Spring
Conference here in Germany. I have answered in the meantime to Chip
because his questions and arguments have been more "technical" and that
is easier for me to understand and to respond.
You refer with your questions first of all to what I mean by space. I
think that this is quite easy. Up to Einstein's special relativity there
was a common basic understanding of geometric space as "emptiness" in
contrast to Einstein and to QM. This space was described by Euclidean
geometry. Some thought that it was filled with some kind of material
called "ether". But whether there is ether or not did not change the
basic properties of geometric space. - This has changed when Einstein
started relativity. Einstein wanted the understanding that the speed of
light c is constant in any frame; not only measured as constant (which
is quite easy to understand), but is truly physically constant. So he
had to solve the equation c + v = c for any value of v . This is not
possible in Euclidean space as we know. So he saw himself forced to
invent a new type of space, i.e. the 4-dim. space which makes relativity
and physics in general complicated. Without Einstein we would have these
days a theory of relativity using Euclidean space (as once proposed by
Lorentz), and physics would be much easier.
What I am doing is that I follow this way; and my space is Euclidean and
has no further properties.
So my assumptions are the understanding of space, charge, and other
phenomena as in the year 1900 with the addition that there are
relativistic phenomena, but no need for Einstein. Do you find this
sufficient or do you ask for more?
John Williamson has complained my assumption that a charge (without
mass) moves at c. Such motion is prohibited by SRT for particles having
inertial mass. For particles without mass but with charge this limit
does not exist to my knowledge. By Dirac, Schrödinger, and Hestenes
there is this Zitterbewegung at c in all elementary particles and
according to Hestenes it is (also) the cause of the magnetic moment. So
it is a motion of charge at c. And my textbook on SRT (A. P. French)
says that the Coulomb law is valid for a moving charge up to c. So, this
assumption is accepted by main stream.
And for the other argument regarding energy of a field, I had a talk to
one of the leading professors for relativity in Germany during the
conference about this topic. And he said that the assumption that an
electric field has energy leads to the conclusion that a field moving at
c would have infinite energy, and as a consequence we have to accept
that this assumption - energy of an electric field - is non-physical.
Best wishes
Albrecht
Am 12.03.2018 um 18:10 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> You are perfectly right "every theory in physics has to start with
> some basic" assumptions and develop physics from there.
>
> Your theory is intriguing and I have been trying to understand it for
> years.
>
> However in doing so I find that it is very important to list all the
> assumptions you are adopting. For example do your charges reside in
> conventional space ant time i.e. space and time filled with charge
> fields of influence or what is the spce time background in which your
> charges move and influence each other.
>
>
> John Williamson's comment below shows how easy it is to confuse each
> others unstated assumptions. Certainly you can call on the
> Zwiterbewegung within elementary particles but are we still talking
> about conventional space time inside these particles in which case his
> objection seems valid to me. I personally do not believe it is correct
> to assume space time as we know it in macroscopic physics can be
> carried down into the quantum domain and visualizations such as Bohr's
> Atom are simply heuristic aids, but if you are going to develop a new
> theory with new assumptions you must explicitly tell us what if any of
> the rather long list of conventional assumptions we take for granted
> are being adopted into you new theory.
>
>
> Certainly "c" can no longer simply be the propagation speed of EM
> fields as defined by Maxwell
>
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 3/12/2018 7:56 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>>>
>>> Hi John and Chip and all,
>>>
>>> sorry to object. A charge can have lightspeed and physics have cases
>>> of this.
>>>
>>> We only know elementary particles with charge, which are having
>>> mass. For these particles it is of course true that they cannot
>>> reach c. But if we assume a charge alone and separate from mass, it
>>> does not have energy on its own, and so not any mass. There is no
>>> physical rule that they must have mass.
>>>
>>> Example is the Zitterbewegung of the electron. It means a permanent
>>> motion at c of the internal charge.
>>>
>>> According to David Hestenes, the Zitterbewegung of the charge (and
>>> so at c) is the cause of the magnetic moment of e.g. the electron.
>>>
>>> And according to my particle model the sub-particles of the electron
>>> (and of other particles), which are massless, permanently move at c.
>>> From this mechanism not only the Bohr magneton follows exactly
>>> (without any need for QM). Also the mass of the electron follows
>>> from it with high precision (almost 10^-6 ). And this works without
>>> any new parameters or any adaptation. The only parameters in this
>>> model are Planck's constant and the elementary charge e_0 , nothing
>>> more. Isn't this a proof for a model?
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Am 12.03.2018 um 08:19 schrieb John Williamson:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> You cannot have a charge at lightspeed. A charge is an electric
>>> field divergence. It therefore always has a (rest) mass
>>> associated with it - the integral energy in the electric field
>>> in the frame at which the charge is at rest. A charge at
>>> lightspeed therefore has infinite energy and is not physical.
>>>
>>> Just saying.
>>>
>>> Regards, JGW.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>]
>>> on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 6:12 PM
>>> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Photon
>>>
>>> Hi Richard
>>>
>>> Question. In your helical model of the photon is each half of
>>> the photon an elementary charge or half an elementary charge?
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>> Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 09, 2018 10:00 PM
>>> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Albrecht
>>> Giese <genmail at a-giese.de> <mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions Tension field
>>> stable particles
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Answers below
>>>
>>> I'm also making progress on the physics chapter 4 of my
>>> cognitive Action Theory Book for Routledge press. I think a good
>>> case can be made for considering ourselves to be living inside a
>>> black hole of a universe consisting of our own material. Our own
>>> material is the physical phase of a self
>>> explanatory/measurement activity cycle (A la Wheeler) and
>>> thereby generates its own space. In such a space all the EM
>>> effects of Maxwell and Lorentz would be valid by self
>>> consistency, since such a Universe runs at its own time rate and
>>> contains its own 1st person observer , which is YOU. I'm looking
>>> for readers and comments from interested parties. Its not
>>> trivial. Chapter 4 and appendices are about 100 pages since this
>>> is new action based physics.
>>>
>>> I am sending appendix 1 to peak your interest. It makes the
>>> case that the applicability of Calculus to physical reality is
>>> limited and the failure to understand these limits leads to
>>> conceptual errors such as the concept of a space time continuum.
>>> I think I am following the kind of reassessment of our
>>> scientific methods Chandra is advocating.
>>>
>>> let me know what you think
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 3/8/2018 10:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> I am going to also answer your other mail. But this one first.
>>>
>>> Am 07.03.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> As you know by now I think the "fixed frame" is always
>>> the frame defined by the observer , which is always the
>>> 1st person you, you cannot get out of yourself and in
>>> that sense makes this frame a fixed frame. Each of us
>>> lives in our own space and refers all our experiences
>>> and experimental results back to that space
>>>
>>> Following Einstein it is true that every observer, which
>>> means every measuring tool, refers to his/its own space. But
>>> following Lorentz the space is universal. The measurement
>>> tools are cheating the observer by hiding the difference
>>> between the different motion states.
>>>
>>> By universal do you mean every observer has his own space
>>> experience or do you mean there is an independent observer
>>> independent space out there ?
>>>
>>> WE must discuss my contention that we are always looking
>>> through the coordinate frame which is the Hilbert space
>>> defined by our detector arrays - the error in SR
>>> pictures is that they show the observer riding along
>>> with a coordinate frame and than assume the observer can
>>> see what is out there including clock dials and rod
>>> lengths as though he were god outside the material
>>> looking in. But the observer must be restricted to look
>>> at a TV monitor inside the coordinate frame that
>>> displays the result of detector interactions
>>>
>>> Please do not overlook that the so called "Hilbert space" is
>>> not a physical space but a mathematical tool to describe
>>> vectors in a convenient way.
>>>
>>> Albrecht I keep trying to make progress by suggesting new ways
>>> to look at things and you keep tweling me I'm wrong because i am
>>> not conforming to the old way of looking at things. Hilbert
>>> space is describe as a mathematical tool in every text book on
>>> Quantum Mechanics I'm fully aware of that but I also believe
>>> this is a limited and restrictive interpretation. If you
>>> actually examine actual experiments from simple photon
>>> polarzation measurements involving two state to comlex position
>>> measurements involving a spectrum of detectors in a bubble
>>> chaber you will notice that the mathematical Hilbert space is
>>> always the the detector cell "through which we look" -by that I
>>> mean into which we project the interpretation of the measurement
>>> interactions recorded on our side of the detector cells.
>>>
>>> If we follow Lorentz position (what I do) then all measures
>>> like clocks and rods change as soon as we move with relation
>>> to the basic fixed frame. But we know the changes (which is
>>> Lorentzian RT) and can compensate for them to a certain degree.
>>>
>>> I agree wth that as long as you realize that this basic fixed
>>> frame is defined by the material from which the observer - in
>>> the end always YOU is built.
>>>
>>> Another issue regarding the elimination of the magnetic
>>> field. If there are more than two charges moving in say
>>> three independent directions I think there is no Lorenz
>>> transform that eliminates the magnetic field for all the
>>> particles , Am I right on this?
>>>
>>> This is a good question, and I have an idea for this. But I
>>> did not make a quantitative calculation.
>>>
>>> I think that also in this case a motion state can be found
>>> where a magnetic field disappears. And I base this on the
>>> following consideration:
>>> Such magnetic field which you have in mind can also be
>>> caused by one electric charge like in the standard case
>>> which has the appropriate motion state. Because also for
>>> magnetic fields a superposition is possible. How can the
>>> state of this related single electric charge be determined?
>>> Assume you have such field then you take an (electric) test
>>> charge. And then you measure the force on this test charge
>>> if it is at rest with respect to your frame. Then you move
>>> this charge in arbitrary directions and determine the
>>> Lorentz force depending on the three possible directions in
>>> space. So you have at least 4 measurements, which is the
>>> force at rest and at the three dimensions of the magnetic
>>> field. Now you can determine the value and the motion state
>>> of the single electric charge which will cause the same
>>> measurement. And with respect to this single charge you have
>>> the situation which we have discussed before, which means
>>> you can find an own motion state for which the magnetism
>>> disappears.
>>>
>>> I think what you are saying is that the magnetic field of all
>>> the charges can be vector summed into one composite field, and
>>> this field can duplicated by a substitute average source charge
>>> moving in the
>>> appropriate direction thus reducing the problem to a two charge
>>> problem to which a Lorenz transformation is applied. I have not
>>> done the calculation but my guess is such a scheme only works
>>> under the point particle assumption since but the local magnetic
>>> field environment around a test charge would not be duplicated.
>>> However in any case it seems one wuld go through the use of
>>> magnetic forces in order to make them disappear. Why bother wy
>>> not simply accept the fact that bith gravity and electric forc
>>> categories have a range and a velocity dependence , and in fact
>>> possibly acceleration and all the derivatives - it just seems
>>> easier.
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> On 3/5/2018 1:51 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>
>>> Einstein used indeed later in his life the word
>>> "ether", but in a different sense. He did not change
>>> his mind in the way that he permanently and finally
>>> refused the understanding that there exists a fixed
>>> frame in the world.
>>>
>>> But in his view space has properties. One property
>>> is the known assumption that space and space-time
>>> are curved. And Einstein tried for the rest of his
>>> life to find and to define more properties of the
>>> space in the expectation that the existence of
>>> fields can be deduced from those properties. Up to
>>> the end of his life he tried to find in this way a /
>>> the "Theory of Everything". He was, as we know, not
>>> successful with it.
>>>
>>> But he never gave up his denial of the possibility
>>> that there is a fixed frame. (I refer here
>>> particularly to the book of Ludwik Kostro, "Einstein
>>> and the Ether", where Kostro has thoroughly
>>> investigated everything what Einstein has said and
>>> published up to the end of his life.)
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Am 05.03.2018 um 21:55 schrieb Chip Akins:
>>>
>>> Gentlemen
>>>
>>> Later in Einstein’s career he *reversed his
>>> opinion* about the “ether”.
>>>
>>> As Einstein pointed out, “/There Is an Important
>>> argument In favor of the hypothesis of the
>>> ether. To deny the existence of the ether means,
>>> in the last analysis, denying all physical
>>> properties to empty space/”… and he said, “/the
>>> ether remains still absolute because its
>>> influence on the inertia of bodies and on the
>>> propagation of light is conceived as independent
>>> of every kind of physical influence./”
>>>
>>> But the physics community was already so
>>> attached to the idea that space was empty that
>>> Einstein’s later comments on the subject have
>>> been principally ignored.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2018 2:32 PM
>>> *To:* Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>;
>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>;
>>> Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>>> <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] Foundational questions
>>> Tension field stable particles
>>>
>>> Wolf:
>>>
>>> Am 02.03.2018 um 04:05 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> I see no conflict between our understanding
>>> of magnetism and coriolis forces and both
>>> are interpretation that can be created or
>>> not by the way we look at phenomena.
>>>
>>> WE start to disagree what I because we agree
>>> want to look at the physics of the observer
>>> as an integral and necessary part of how
>>> phenomena are perceived. And this is where
>>> we should be focusing our discussion. What
>>> assumptions are valid and what physics would
>>> we develop if we change our assumptions?
>>>
>>> more comments added
>>>
>>> ... and some comments back.
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 3/1/2018 6:52 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf:
>>>
>>> my answers again in your text.
>>>
>>> Am 01.03.2018 um 04:59 schrieb Wolfgang
>>> Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> The Coriolis force as a surrogate
>>> for the Magnetic force is a good
>>> example that shows we are talking
>>> about ttwo different things. I was
>>> taught exactly what you repeated
>>> below in Mr. Bray's physics class
>>> and did not believe it then because
>>> when I take a ride on a
>>> Merry-go-Round I feel a force that
>>> is real. Period.
>>>
>>> That is indeed correct. It is a real
>>> force. If we have a hurricane on earth
>>> it is a result of the Coriolis force and
>>> that is a real force. The point is,
>>> however, that it is not a NEW force but
>>> the well known Newtonian inertial force;
>>> just interpreted in a different way.
>>>
>>> The same with magnetism. Also magnetism
>>> shows a real force. And that force is
>>> the electric force, but also in this
>>> case interpreted in a different way.
>>>
>>> *OK*
>>>
>>> I do not care what you call it You
>>> can look at me from many different
>>> angles and in many different ways
>>> but the force I feel is real,
>>>
>>> Yes, it is real, but interpreted in a
>>> different way.
>>>
>>> *OK*
>>>
>>> What I am arguing and what I want
>>> you to be aware of is that in the
>>> sentence "The Coriolis force is a
>>> non-existent force." it is the name
>>> of the force that may be the wrong
>>> name for the force I experience,
>>> but the force is real.
>>>
>>> You are right, better wording would be
>>> "it does not exist as a NEW force".
>>>
>>> All the examples I've give and let
>>> me add the Lorenz Force F= E*q + B
>>> xV , where V my velocity.You think I
>>> am arguing but I am not arguing
>>> that by moving at some velocity you
>>> can make B disappear in your
>>> equation and by moving at another
>>> velocity you can make V equal to
>>> zero in your equation. I am arguing
>>> that you cannot make the phenomena
>>> disappear. No matter how many
>>> theories you invent and how many
>>> different names you invent. The
>>> phenomena, the force I feel does
>>> not depend on your theory. I and the
>>> situation I am in is an independent
>>> reality. All you can do with Lorenz
>>> transformations is shift the name of
>>> the force from magnatic to and
>>> additional Coulonb component.
>>> Exactly the same way moving from
>>> astationary observer at the center
>>> of the Merry-go-Round shifts the
>>> name ov the force from acceleration
>>> to Coreolis. Its the same force!
>>>
>>> True, there is a force. But only
>>> interpreted as something new or
>>> additional, which is not the case.
>>>
>>> "To make magnetism disappear" does not
>>> mean that every force disappears. It
>>> means that you can explain all what you
>>> observe as Coulomb force.
>>>
>>> And one should be cautious in the
>>> practical case. In daily physical
>>> practise we measure magnetism by use of
>>> a magnetic dipole. But that is not the
>>> correct way. Correct is to use an
>>> electric charge, measure the force and
>>> compare it to the Coulomb force as
>>> visible from the actual state of motion.
>>>
>>> *OK*
>>>
>>>
>>> I recommend again at the "Veritasium"
>>> video. It shows the situation in a good
>>> and correct way.
>>>
>>> Unless (and here is where I am
>>> trying to get us to go) one begins
>>> to believe and evoke the principles
>>> of quantum theory or its
>>> marcro-scopic extension which I am
>>> trying to develop.
>>>
>>> All this has nothing to do with quantum
>>> theory. It is one of the sources of QM
>>> that physicists misinterpret classical
>>> physical processes, lack an explanation
>>> and then divert to QM seeking for an
>>> explanation, which is in those cases not
>>> needed. But misleading.
>>>
>>> *So we agree until we get to this point*
>>>
>>> In those extensions the Newtonian,
>>> and Maxwellian phenomena are true in
>>> the coordinate frame of the observer
>>> BECAUSE the coordinate frame
>>> supplies the space , now called
>>> Hilbert space in which those
>>> phenomena are displayed to the
>>> observer. The observer IS the
>>> coordinate frame and his observable
>>> phenomena occur within the space
>>> defined by that coordinate frame.
>>> Everything you see is seen in a
>>> space you create within the material
>>> from which you are built.
>>>
>>> I personally do not see the space as
>>> being created by anything. I keep my
>>> naive view that space is nothing than
>>> emptiness and has no extra properties,
>>> Euclidean geometry applies and is
>>> sufficient.
>>>
>>> Should I ever encounter an argument that
>>> this is not sufficient, I am prepared to
>>> change my mind. But up to now it was not
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> *Does the fact that you simply are not
>>> recognizing that it is your first person
>>> perspective in which "empty" space appears
>>> that is your fundamental experience and any
>>> assumption that such experience is due to a
>>> real space is Theory. Do you not ask how is
>>> it that I am able to create the sensations I
>>> have. Are you and your experiences not part
>>> of the reality and therefore must be
>>> explained as part of your if you are to have
>>> a comprehensive theory. AND there is no
>>> explanation in classic or relativistic
>>> physics for the consciousness of the
>>> observer. One must begin to think in Quantum
>>> terms*
>>>
>>> We know that our brain gives us wrong or biased
>>> information about this world. Because our brains
>>> have developed to help us to survive, not to
>>> have insights. But as a guide to help us to
>>> survive it can only function if our
>>> understanding of the world is not too far away
>>> from the way as the world in fact is.
>>>
>>> As far as I can see, as long as people try to
>>> understand this world they (at least the
>>> scientists) know the problem that our brain and
>>> our senses are misleading us. So this general
>>> problem of understanding is in the mind of the
>>> people and was in their mind at least since the
>>> time of ancient Greece. The only question is how
>>> to start with an according investigation. One
>>> way to cope with this problem is and was to
>>> build measurement tools which give us results
>>> independent of our mood. These tools are
>>> continuously developed. And we are of course not
>>> at the end of this development. But we can only
>>> develop and correct our tools if there are
>>> results and hints which give us informations on
>>> errors. Without those informations we are
>>> playing with dice, and these dice do not have 6
>>> numbers but many thousand numbers. Does this
>>> playing make any sense for us?
>>>
>>> Quantum theory has in my view nothing to do with
>>> the fact that our understanding is related to
>>> our brain. This assumption that a physical
>>> process depends on the consciousness of the
>>> observer has a different origin. Heisenberg
>>> found himself completely unable and helpless to
>>> understand the particle-wave phenomenon. So he
>>> once said that we have to go back to Plato and
>>> so he threw away all that progress which Newton
>>> has brought into our physical understanding. And
>>> on the other hand he neglected the proposal of
>>> Louis de Broglie about the particle-wave
>>> question because at that time he was already so
>>> much related to a mysterious view that he was no
>>> more able to leave that. - At this point I agree
>>> to Einstein and de Broglie that a mystification
>>> of physics will not give us progress.
>>>
>>> All the physics before Einstein was
>>> developed with the assumption that
>>> there is an independent objective 3D
>>> reality space ( and it should be a
>>> stationary ether) in which all these
>>> objects appear. Einstein almost got
>>> it right. There is no independent
>>> ether and it all depends upon the
>>> coordinate frame. He did not take
>>> the next step. We observers are the
>>> coordinate frame each of us
>>> supplies the ether.
>>>
>>> Here my position is completely opposite.
>>> We do have an independent ether as
>>> Lorentz has assumed it. And it is an
>>> ether in the sense that the speed of
>>> light is related to a fixed frame, and
>>> this does not cause any logical
>>> conflicts in my understanding.
>>>
>>> *OK so you make the assumption that we do
>>> have an independent ether. That is the old
>>> "naive reality" assumption and classic
>>> mechanics and EM theory is built on this
>>> assumption. But quantum theory is no longer
>>> built on this assumption.*
>>>
>>> Ether is not compatible with Einstein's
>>> understanding of relativity. But also QM is not
>>> compatible with Einstein's relativity. So I do
>>> not see any specific connection of QM to the
>>> absence of an ether. QM simple does not to care.
>>>
>>> Einstein said that an ether is not necessary and
>>> not helpful. Lorentz told him situations which
>>> by Lorentz view are not understandable without
>>> ether. Einstein repeated his denial of an ether
>>> but he could not answer the questions of Lorentz.
>>>
>>> *
>>> So is the ether related to the fixed frame ?
>>> What ether is attached to my fixed frame?
>>> Are they different ethers? Or is there one
>>> ether, and we are all material objects
>>> moving in that ether who just happen to be
>>> able to interpret some configurations of
>>> material as space with objects moving in
>>> them. why should our mental display of our
>>> experience be anything but one possible way
>>> of building a mental display along a very
>>> very long path of evolution. Do you really
>>> believe you are the pinnacle or end of that
>>> process?*
>>>
>>> The ether of Lorentz does not mean anything more
>>> than the existence of a fixed frame. And in the
>>> view of Ludwik Kostro and particularly my view,
>>> the photons of our light are giving us this
>>> reference. All photons move with the same -
>>> absolute - speed c, and this speed is related to
>>> something. I guess to the position and motion
>>> state of the Big Bang. If we look at the CMB we
>>> see a different red shift depending on the
>>> direction. And we can quite easily calculate
>>> which motion with respect to our earth we must
>>> have so that this red shift becomes isotropic.
>>> This tells us what the reference of the ether
>>> most probably is.
>>>
>>> Please read may Vigier X Paper again
>>> but ignore the first part where I'm
>>> trying to show why SR is wrong - you
>>> argued a lot with that. The real
>>> reason SR is wrong is because
>>> Einstein developed it without
>>> recognizing that his imagination
>>> supplied the background ether and
>>> his rail car and .embankment
>>> observer where "RIDING ALONG" with
>>> their coordinate frames observing
>>> Einsteins imaginary space. They were
>>> not IN their own space.
>>>
>>> Can you please copy this essential part
>>> of your paper here? I do not have it at
>>> hand in this moment.
>>>
>>> *SEE ATTACHED*
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> This is where we should return to
>>> our SR discussion and properly add
>>> the observer to physics
>>>
>>> Special relativity gives us in my view
>>> not any reason to turn to an observer
>>> dependent physics. For Einstein's view
>>> it is correct, but for the Lorentzian it
>>> is not necessary.
>>>
>>> Ludwik Kostro, who participated in
>>> Vigier X, has written a book about
>>> "Einstein and the ether". And he has -
>>> among other sources - reprinted a letter
>>> exchange between Einstein and Lorentz
>>> about the necessity of an ether. Lorentz
>>> described a (Gedanken) experiment which
>>> in his view is not explainable without
>>> ether. Einstein refused to except an
>>> ether, but he did not present any
>>> arguments how this experiment can be
>>> understood without it.
>>>
>>> I still think that Einstein's relativity
>>> has mislead the physical world in a
>>> tremendous way. There are in fact
>>> relativistic phenomena, but Einstein's
>>> way to treat them was really bad.
>>>
>>> *I agree and this agreement is what gave us
>>> a common goal of finding a better explanation.*
>>>
>>> Hopefully
>>> Albrecht*
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> CHANDRA- there may be an abstract
>>> independent CTF but my suggestion is
>>> that it may be the ether each of us
>>> is made of and therefor may be
>>> thought to be stationary.
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/2018 10:28 AM, Albrecht
>>> Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf:
>>>
>>> I think that there is a simple
>>> answer to your concern regarding
>>> magnetism. If you accept that
>>> magnetism is not a real physical
>>> entity but a seeming effect then
>>> there should not exist the
>>> logical conflicts which you see.
>>>
>>> I think that the Coriolis force
>>> is a good example to understand
>>> the situation: Assume that you
>>> are sitting in a cabin without a
>>> view to the outside. Now assume
>>> that this cabin is rotating very
>>> silently so that you do not
>>> notice the rotation. You are
>>> sitting in a chair in the middle
>>> on the rotational axis. Now you
>>> throw a ball from your position
>>> away from you. You will expect
>>> that the ball flies on a
>>> straight path off. But you will
>>> observe that the ball flies on a
>>> curved path. And what will be
>>> your explanation? You will think
>>> that there must be a force which
>>> moves the ball to the side. -
>>> This is the Coriolis force.
>>>
>>> But this force does not in fact
>>> exist. If there is an observer
>>> on top of the cabin and can look
>>> into the cabin, in his view the
>>> ball moves on a straight line.
>>> And there is no reason for a force.
>>>
>>> The Coriolis force is a
>>> non-existent force. Similarly
>>> the magnetic field is a
>>> non-existent field.
>>>
>>> Am 27.02.2018 um 04:46 schrieb
>>> Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I have a tremendous aversion
>>> to believing that the
>>> observer (unless we are
>>> talking quantum effects
>>> where measurement interferes
>>> with the object measured )
>>> can have any effect on the
>>> independent “whatever it is”
>>> out there. But physicists
>>> often confuse measurement
>>> results with physical
>>> realities.
>>>
>>> Regarding “*The relative
>>> velocity between charges
>>> does NOT determine the
>>> magnetic field.”*
>>>
>>> Jaxon Classical
>>> Electrodynamics p 136 states
>>> the force between two
>>> current segments is oin
>>> differential form
>>>
>>> d*F12* = - I1*I2 (*dl1* ●
>>> *dl2*)**X12* /(c^2 * |*X12*|^3
>>>
>>> now the current is charge
>>> q1**v1 = *I1**dl1 *and
>>> q2**v2 = *I1**dl1
>>> *substituting means the
>>> magnetic force between the
>>> two charges is dependent on
>>> the dot product between the
>>> two velocities (*v1* ● *v2*).
>>>
>>> Furthermore Goldstien
>>> Classical Mechanics talks
>>> about velocity dependent
>>> potentials p19
>>>
>>> And we all know the magnetic
>>> force is F =~ v1 x B12 while
>>> the magnetic field is
>>> dependent on v! , so the
>>> force is dependent on two
>>> velocities.
>>>
>>> Now your statement ‘*But the
>>> magnetic field depends on
>>> the relative velocity
>>> between the observer and the
>>> one charge and the observer
>>> and the other charge. Where
>>> "observer" means the
>>> measuring tool.” *Is
>>> certainly true because one
>>> can always define one
>>> coordinate frame that moves
>>> with velocity of the first
>>> charge and a second
>>> coordinate frame that moves
>>> with the velocity of the
>>> second charge. So in these
>>> two coordinate frames each
>>> one would say there is no B
>>> field.
>>>
>>> However I see both charges
>>> in *one coordinate frame*
>>> and that is how the
>>> experiments leading to the
>>> force equations were
>>> conducted. So I question
>>> whether your assumption that
>>> there are two coordinate
>>> frames and I assume you
>>> would like to connected by
>>> the Lorenz transforms
>>> reflects physical reality.
>>>
>>> I have asked you in the previous
>>> mail NOT to argue with
>>> coordinate frames because we
>>> should discuss physics and not
>>> mathematics. Now you cite me
>>> with statements about coordinate
>>> frames. How can I understand that?
>>>
>>> However if you really insist to
>>> talk about frames: The saying
>>> that two charges are in
>>> different coordinate frames
>>> means that these charges are _at
>>> rest_ in different coordinate
>>> frames. They can of course be
>>> investigated by an observer (or
>>> a tool) which resides in _one
>>> _frame.
>>>
>>> The equation from Jackson which
>>> you have cited above is
>>> essentially the same as the one
>>> that I gave you in the previous
>>> mail. And it says also that the
>>> magnetic field depends on the
>>> _product _of both charges
>>> involved, not on their difference.
>>>
>>> I reiterate the concept of
>>> fields even the coulomb
>>> field is passed upon the
>>> measured force between a
>>> test charge Qt and another
>>> charge Qn. So that the total
>>> force on the test charge is
>>>
>>> F =~ SUM over all n ( Qt *
>>> Qn / Rtn^2 )
>>>
>>> And it is possible to
>>> introduce a field
>>>
>>> E = SUM over all n ( Qn /
>>> Rtn^2 )
>>>
>>> As
>>> that
>>> F= Qt * E
>>>
>>> Perfectly good
>>> mathematically. But to
>>> assume that physically E is
>>> a property of space rather
>>> than simply the sum of
>>> charge to charge
>>> interactions that would
>>> happen if a test charge were
>>> at that space is a counter
>>> factual. And not consistent
>>> with the quantum photon theory.
>>>
>>> Why do you assume that a field
>>> is a property of space? If you
>>> assume that space is nothing
>>> else than emptiness then you
>>> will have all necessary results.
>>> Why making things unnecessarily
>>> complicated?
>>>
>>> Which by the way I think is
>>> also wrong. Photons are
>>> false interpretations of
>>> charge to charge interactions.
>>>
>>> I do not remember that we talk
>>> here about quantum theory. For
>>> this discussion at least it is
>>> not needed. And regarding
>>> photons, I have explained very
>>> detailed that photons - as I
>>> have measured them in my thesis
>>> work - are particles with
>>> specific properties; but clearly
>>> particles. You did not object to
>>> my arguments but you repeat your
>>> statement that a photon as a
>>> particle is a false
>>> interpretation. It would be good
>>> to hear argument than only
>>> statements.
>>>
>>> that is for another discussion
>>>
>>> Which else discussion?
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>>
>>> wolf
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 2/26/2018 3:27 AM,
>>> Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> my comments and
>>> explanations in the text
>>> below.
>>>
>>> Am 25.02.2018 um 05:26
>>> schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I think I understand
>>> your arguments since
>>> this is what is
>>> generally taught,
>>> however I have
>>> always been
>>> uncomfortable with
>>> the statements
>>> involving “observer”.
>>>
>>> So I question your
>>> statement “The
>>> different amount
>>> seen by the observer
>>> can be calculated by
>>> the use of the
>>> force-related
>>> Lorentz
>>> transformation -
>>> from the frame of
>>> the electrons to the
>>> frame of the observer.”
>>>
>>> Now ancient
>>> experiments
>>> discovered that
>>> there are two
>>> reciprocal forces
>>> between charges. The
>>> relative distance R
>>> gives the Coulomb
>>> force F_E and the
>>> relative velocity
>>> gives the Magnetic
>>> force F_B
>>>
>>> Now if these are
>>> independent entities
>>> whose existence does
>>> not depend upon any
>>> observation made by
>>> the observer (until
>>> we get to quantum
>>> measurements) .
>>> /This means the
>>> physics is fixed
>>> /and so are the
>>> parameters. Any
>>> measurement made by
>>> any coordinate frame
>>> when properly
>>> processed for its
>>> own distortions will
>>> result in the same
>>> parameters, so R,V,
>>> F_B , F_E ^and yes
>>> the speed of light
>>> must be constant.
>>>
>>> If the measurement
>>> results differ
>>> either we do not
>>> have objective
>>> measurement
>>> independent reality
>>> or else there is an
>>> unaccounted artifact
>>> in the measurement
>>> process.
>>>
>>> There is an error in
>>> your above arguments.
>>> The relative velocity
>>> between charges does NOT
>>> determine the magnetic
>>> field. But the magnetic
>>> field depends on the
>>> relative velocity
>>> between the observer and
>>> the one charge and the
>>> observer and the other
>>> charge. Where "observer"
>>> means the measuring tool.
>>>
>>> The entities are not
>>> independent in so far as
>>> any observer will see
>>> them in a different way.
>>> That is not a
>>> consequence of quantum
>>> mechanics but very
>>> simply the consequence
>>> of the fact that in a
>>> moving system the tools
>>> change (like rulers
>>> contract and clocks are
>>> slowed down) and so
>>> their measurement
>>> results differ from a
>>> tool measuring while
>>> being at rest. This is
>>> the reason that we need
>>> a Lorentz transformation
>>> to compare physical
>>> entities in one moving
>>> frame to entities in
>>> another moving frame.
>>>
>>> I and QM claims
>>> there is no
>>> objective
>>> measurement
>>> independent reality.
>>>
>>> That may be the case but
>>> has nothing to do with
>>> our discussion here.
>>>
>>> Lorenz assumed the
>>> coordinate frame
>>> dilates and shrinks
>>> so that when raw
>>> measurements are
>>> made and no
>>> correction is
>>> applied we may not
>>> observe a magnetic
>>> field but instead a
>>> different Coulomb
>>> field so that the
>>> actual result on the
>>> object measured
>>> remains the same
>>> only the names of
>>> the causes have been
>>> changed.
>>>
>>> You are permanently
>>> referring to coordinate
>>> frames. But we are
>>> treating here physical
>>> facts and not
>>> mathematical ones. So
>>> coordinates should be
>>> omitted as an argument
>>> as I have proposed it
>>> earlier.
>>>
>>> Now consider looking
>>> at the same two
>>> charges from an
>>> arbitrary coordinate
>>> frame. then in that
>>> frame the two
>>> charges will have wo
>>> velocities V1 and V2
>>> but there will
>>> always be a
>>> difference V
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> ^
>>>
>>> I contend that it
>>> does not matter what
>>> frame you chose
>>> cannot get rid of
>>> the relative
>>> velocity. The only
>>> way you can get rid
>>> of the magnetic
>>> field is if there
>>> was no relative
>>> velocity in the
>>> first palace. And
>>> there never was a
>>> magnetic field in
>>> the physics.
>>>
>>> As soon as the observer
>>> moves in the same frame,
>>> i.e. with the same speed
>>> vector as one of the
>>> charges, he does not see
>>> a magnetic field. In the
>>> deduction of the
>>> magnetic field which I
>>> have attached (from a
>>> talk at a conference
>>> last year) the magnetic
>>> force is defined by the
>>> equation:
>>>
>>> where v and u are the
>>> speeds of two charges,
>>> q1 and q2, , with
>>> respect to the observer.
>>> y is the distance and
>>> gamma the Lorentz factor
>>> in the set up shown.
>>>
>>> Therefore your
>>> further conclusion
>>> “As soon as an
>>> observer moves with
>>> one charge, i.e. he
>>> is at rest with
>>> respect to the frame
>>> of one of the
>>> charges, then there
>>> is no magnetic field
>>> for him.” Is only
>>> true if there was no
>>> magnetic field in
>>> the first place, a
>>> very special case.
>>>
>>> We must be very
>>> careful not to
>>> confuse the actual
>>> physics in a
>>> situation with the
>>> way we look at it.
>>>
>>> I guess that you know
>>> the Coriolis force. This
>>> force is somewhat
>>> similar to magnetism. It
>>> is in effect for one
>>> observer but not for
>>> another one depending on
>>> the observer's motion.
>>> And there is nothing
>>> mysterious about it, and
>>> also quantum mechanics
>>> is not needed for an
>>> explanation.
>>>
>>> In your logic you would
>>> have to say: If there is
>>> no Coriolis force then
>>> there is no inertial
>>> mass. But that is
>>> clearly not the case.
>>>
>>> If we apply the same
>>> analysis to the
>>> Michelson Morley
>>> experiment I think
>>> we will also find
>>> that there never was
>>> a fringe shift in
>>> the physics. The
>>> physics states
>>> charges interact
>>> with other charges,
>>> basta. Introducing
>>> fields and then
>>> attributing what has
>>> always been a
>>> summation of many
>>> charge effects on
>>> one test charge onto
>>> a property of empty
>>> space is simply a
>>> convenient
>>> mathematical trick
>>> that hides the
>>> physical reality.
>>>
>>> The MM experiment is
>>> easily explained by the
>>> fact that there is
>>> contraction in the
>>> direction of motion.
>>> Nothing more is needed
>>> to explain the
>>> null-result. In the view
>>> of Einstein space
>>> contracts and in the
>>> view of Lorentz the
>>> apparatus contracts as
>>> the internal fields
>>> contract. And the latter
>>> is a known phenomenon in
>>> physics.
>>>
>>> I further submit
>>> this as an argument
>>> that mass and charge
>>> are fundamental
>>> physics and if there
>>> is to be a CTF it is
>>> the tension that
>>> holds mass and
>>> charge together when
>>> electro-magentic
>>> forces operating on
>>> charge densities and
>>> gravito-inertial
>>> forces operating on
>>> mass densities are
>>> not balanced and
>>> pulls mass and
>>> charge apart. I
>>> further submit the
>>> the resulting
>>> fluctuations in the
>>> mass-charge
>>> densities leads to
>>> CTF propagating
>>> patterns that are an
>>> ontologically
>>> defensible
>>> interpretation of
>>> Schroedingers Wave
>>> function.
>>>
>>> An indication that mass
>>> is not fundamental is
>>> the fact that mass can
>>> be converted into
>>> energy. On the other
>>> hand charge cannot be
>>> converted into energy;
>>> this can be taken as an
>>> argument that it is
>>> fundamental.
>>>
>>> Anything still
>>> controversial? Then
>>> please explain.
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Tell me why I’m wrong
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On 2/23/2018 6:51
>>> AM, Albrecht Giese
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> If two electrons
>>> move side by
>>> side, the main
>>> force between
>>> them is of
>>> course the
>>> electrostatic
>>> one. But there
>>> is an additional
>>> contribution to
>>> the force which
>>> is measured in
>>> the frame of an
>>> observer at rest
>>> (like the one of
>>> Millikan). In
>>> the frame of the
>>> moving electrons
>>> (maybe they
>>> belong to the
>>> same frame)
>>> there is only
>>> the
>>> electrostatic
>>> force, true. The
>>> different amount
>>> seen by the
>>> observer can be
>>> calculated by
>>> the use of the
>>> force-related
>>> Lorentz
>>> transformation -
>>> from the frame
>>> of the electrons
>>> to the frame of
>>> the observer.
>>>
>>> If the oil-drop
>>> chamber is in
>>> steady motion
>>> this has
>>> primarily no
>>> influence.
>>> Important is the
>>> motion state of
>>> the observer. If
>>> the observer is
>>> at rest with
>>> respect to the
>>> moving oil-drops
>>> (and so of the
>>> electrons), he
>>> will notice a
>>> contribution of
>>> magnetism. Any
>>> motion of the
>>> chamber does not
>>> matter for this
>>> fact.
>>>
>>> In general
>>> magnetism is
>>> visible for an
>>> observer who is
>>> in motion with
>>> respect to both
>>> charges under
>>> consideration.
>>> As soon as an
>>> observer moves
>>> with one charge,
>>> i.e. he is at
>>> rest with
>>> respect to the
>>> frame of one of
>>> the charges,
>>> then there is no
>>> magnetic field
>>> for him.
>>>
>>> Your example of
>>> two compass
>>> needles is a
>>> more complex one
>>> even if it does
>>> not look so. To
>>> treat this case
>>> correctly we
>>> have to take
>>> into account the
>>> cause of the
>>> magnetism of the
>>> needle, that
>>> means of the
>>> circling charges
>>> in the atoms (in
>>> Fe). If we would
>>> do this then -
>>> seen from our
>>> own frame - both
>>> groups of
>>> charges are
>>> moving, the
>>> charges in the
>>> conductor and
>>> also the charges
>>> in the needle's
>>> atoms. So as
>>> both are moving
>>> with respect to
>>> the observer,
>>> this is the
>>> cause for a
>>> magnetic field
>>> between both
>>> objects.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Am 22.02.2018 um
>>> 21:02 schrieb
>>> Roychoudhuri,
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>> Your point
>>> is well
>>> taken. Not
>>> being expert
>>> in
>>> magnetism, I
>>> need to
>>> spend more
>>> time on this
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> However, let
>>> me pose a
>>> question to
>>> think.
>>>
>>> If two
>>> electrons
>>> are trapped
>>> in two side
>>> by side but
>>> separate
>>> Millikan oil
>>> drops, the
>>> two
>>> electrons
>>> feel each
>>> other’s
>>> static
>>> E-field, but
>>> no magnetic
>>> field. If
>>> the oil-drop
>>> chamber was
>>> given a
>>> steady
>>> velocity,
>>> could
>>> Millikan
>>> have
>>> measured the
>>> presence of
>>> a magnetic
>>> field due to
>>> the moving
>>> electrons
>>> (“current”),
>>> which would
>>> have been
>>> dying out as
>>> the chamber
>>> moved
>>> further
>>> away? This
>>> experiment
>>> can be
>>> conceived in
>>> many
>>> different
>>> ways and can
>>> be executed.
>>> Hence, this
>>> is not a
>>> pure
>>> “Gedanken”
>>> experiment.
>>> I am sure,
>>> some
>>> equivalent
>>> experiment
>>> has been
>>> done by
>>> somebody.
>>> Send me the
>>> reference,
>>> if you can
>>> find one.
>>>
>>> Are two
>>> parallel
>>> current
>>> carrying
>>> conductors
>>> deflecting
>>> magnetic
>>> needles
>>> (undergraduate
>>> experiment)
>>> different
>>> from two
>>> independent
>>> electrons
>>> moving
>>> parallel to
>>> each other?
>>>
>>> I have just
>>> re-phrased
>>> Einstein’s
>>> example that
>>> you have
>>> given below.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Chandra.
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>> Behalf Of
>>> *Albrecht Giese
>>> *Sent:*
>>> Thursday,
>>> February 22,
>>> 2018 2:26 PM
>>> *To:*
>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> *Subject:*
>>> Re:
>>> [General]
>>> Foundational
>>> questions
>>> Tension
>>> field stable
>>> particles
>>>
>>> Chandra,
>>>
>>> I like very
>>> much what
>>> you have
>>> written
>>> here.
>>> Particularly
>>> what you say
>>> about "time"
>>> which
>>> physically
>>> means
>>> oscillations.
>>> That is what
>>> one should
>>> keep in mind
>>> when
>>> thinking
>>> about
>>> relativity.
>>>
>>> However in
>>> one point I
>>> have to
>>> object. That
>>> is your
>>> judgement of
>>> the
>>> parameter µ.
>>> I think that
>>> it is a
>>> result from
>>> the
>>> historical
>>> fact that
>>> magnetism
>>> was detected
>>> long time
>>> earlier than
>>> electricity.
>>> So magnetism
>>> plays a
>>> great role
>>> in our view
>>> of physics
>>> which does
>>> not reflect
>>> its role
>>> there. We
>>> know since
>>> about 100
>>> years that
>>> magnetism is
>>> not a
>>> primary
>>> phenomenon
>>> but an
>>> apparent
>>> effect, a
>>> side effect
>>> of the
>>> electric
>>> field which
>>> is caused by
>>> the
>>> finiteness
>>> of c. If c
>>> would be
>>> infinite
>>> there would
>>> not be any
>>> magnetism.
>>> This is
>>> given by the
>>> equation c^2
>>> =
>>> (1/ϵµ)which
>>> you have
>>> mentioned.
>>> This
>>> equation
>>> should be
>>> better
>>> written as µ
>>> = (1/c^2 ϵ)
>>> to reflect
>>> this
>>> physical
>>> fact, the
>>> dependency
>>> of the
>>> magnetism on c.
>>>
>>> The symmetry
>>> between
>>> electricity
>>> and
>>> magnetism is
>>> suggested by
>>> Maxwell's
>>> equation.
>>> These
>>> equations
>>> are
>>> mathematically
>>> very elegant
>>> and well
>>> usable in
>>> practice.
>>> But they do
>>> not reflect
>>> the physical
>>> reality.
>>> Easiest
>>> visible is
>>> the fact
>>> that we have
>>> electrical
>>> monopoles
>>> but no
>>> magnetic
>>> monopoles.
>>> Einstein has
>>> described
>>> this fact by
>>> saying:
>>> Whenever an
>>> observer is
>>> in a
>>> magnetic
>>> field, he
>>> can find a
>>> motion state
>>> so that the
>>> magnetic
>>> field
>>> disappears.
>>> - This is as
>>> we know not
>>> possible for
>>> an electric
>>> field.
>>>
>>> I think that
>>> we have
>>> discussed
>>> this
>>> earlier. Do
>>> you remember?
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>> Am
>>> 21.02.2018
>>> um 00:00
>>> schrieb
>>> Roychoudhuri,
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> /“We
>>> nee//d a
>>> geometry
>>> in which
>>> both
>>> space
>>> and time
>>> are
>>> curved
>>> back on
>>> themselves
>>> to
>>> provide
>>> a donut
>>> in which
>>> the
>>> forces
>>> Fem,
>>> Fgi,
>>> Fcm,Fmc
>>> are self
>>> contained
>>> eigen
>>> states
>>> at each
>>> action
>>> quanta. /
>>>
>>> /Does
>>> any of
>>> this
>>> suggest
>>> a
>>> tension
>>> field
>>> you
>>> might be
>>> thinking
>>> about??”/
>>>
>>> Yes,
>>> Wolf, we
>>> need to
>>> model
>>> mathematically
>>> the
>>> “twists
>>> and
>>> turns”
>>> of
>>> different
>>> intrinsic
>>> potential
>>> gradients
>>> embedded
>>> in CTF
>>> (Complex
>>> Tension
>>> Field)
>>> to
>>> create
>>> stationary
>>> self-looped
>>> oscillations
>>> (*/field-particles/*).
>>> Maxwell
>>> achieved
>>> that for
>>> the
>>> propagating
>>> linear
>>> excitations
>>> using
>>> his
>>> brilliant
>>> observations
>>> of using
>>> the
>>> double
>>> differentiation
>>> – giving
>>> us the
>>> EM wave
>>> equation.
>>> We need
>>> to find
>>> non-propagating
>>> (stationary
>>> –
>>> Newton’s
>>> first
>>> law)
>>> self-looped
>>> oscillations
>>> – the
>>> in-phase
>>> ones
>>> will be
>>> stable,
>>> others
>>> will
>>> “break
>>> apart”
>>> with
>>> different
>>> life-times
>>> depending
>>> upon how
>>> far they
>>> are from
>>> the
>>> in-phase
>>> closed-loop
>>> conditions.
>>> The
>>> successes
>>> of the
>>> mathematical
>>> oscillatory
>>> dynamic
>>> model
>>> could be
>>> judged
>>> by the
>>> number
>>> of
>>> predicted
>>> properties
>>> the
>>> theory
>>> can find
>>> for the
>>> */field-particles,/*
>>> which we
>>> have
>>> measured
>>> so far.
>>> The
>>> physical
>>> CTF must
>>> remain
>>> stationary
>>> holding
>>> 100% of
>>> the
>>> cosmic
>>> energy.
>>>
>>> However,
>>> I would
>>> not
>>> attempt
>>> to keep
>>> the
>>> primacy
>>> of
>>> Relativity
>>> by
>>> trying
>>> to keep
>>> the
>>> Space-Time
>>> 4-D
>>> concept
>>> intact.
>>> If we
>>> want to
>>> capture
>>> the
>>> ontological
>>> reality;
>>> we must
>>> imagine
>>> and
>>> visualize
>>> the
>>> potential
>>> */foundational/*
>>> physical
>>> process
>>> and
>>> represent
>>> that
>>> with a
>>> set of
>>> algebraic
>>> symbols
>>> and call
>>> them the
>>> primary
>>> parameters
>>> of
>>> “different
>>> grades”.
>>> During
>>> constructing
>>> mathematical
>>> theories,
>>> it is of
>>> prime
>>> importance
>>> to
>>> introduce
>>> consciously
>>> this
>>> concept
>>> of
>>> “primary”,
>>> vs.
>>> “secondary”,
>>> vs.
>>> “tertiary”,
>>> etc.,
>>> physical
>>> parameters
>>> related
>>> to any
>>> observable
>>> physical
>>> phenomenon.
>>> The
>>> physical
>>> parameter
>>> that
>>> dictates
>>> the core
>>> existence
>>> of an
>>> entity
>>> in
>>> nature
>>> should
>>> be
>>> considered
>>> as
>>> primary.
>>> However,
>>> it is
>>> not
>>> going to
>>> be easy
>>> because
>>> of the
>>> complexities
>>> in the
>>> different
>>> interaction
>>> processes
>>> –
>>> different
>>> parameters
>>> take key
>>> role in
>>> transferring
>>> the
>>> energy
>>> in
>>> different
>>> interactions.
>>> Besides,
>>> our
>>> ignorance
>>> is still
>>> significantly
>>> broad
>>> compared
>>> to the
>>> “validated”
>>> knowledge
>>> we have
>>> gathered
>>> about
>>> our
>>> universe.
>>> Here is
>>> a
>>> glaring
>>> example.
>>> νλ = c =
>>> (1/ϵµ).
>>> If I am
>>> doing
>>> atomic
>>> physics,
>>> ν is of
>>> primary
>>> importance
>>> because
>>> of the
>>> quantum
>>> resonance
>>> with ν
>>> and the
>>> QM
>>> energy
>>> exchange
>>> rule is
>>> “hν”.
>>> “λ”
>>> changes
>>> from
>>> medium
>>> to
>>> medium.
>>> If I am
>>> doing
>>> Astrophysics,
>>> ϵ and µ
>>> for free
>>> space,
>>> are of
>>> primary
>>> significance;
>>> even
>>> though
>>> people
>>> tend to
>>> use “c”,
>>> while
>>> missing
>>> out the
>>> fundamental
>>> roles of
>>> ϵ and µ
>>> as some
>>> of the
>>> core
>>> building
>>> blocks
>>> of the
>>> universe.
>>> Funny
>>> thing is
>>> that the
>>> ϵ and µ
>>> of free
>>> space
>>> were
>>> recognized
>>> well
>>> before
>>> Maxwell
>>> synthesized
>>> Electromagnetism.
>>>
>>> With
>>> this
>>> background,
>>> I want
>>> underscore
>>> that the
>>> “running
>>> time,
>>> “t” is
>>> of
>>> critical
>>> importance
>>> in our
>>> formulation
>>> of the
>>> dynamic
>>> universe.
>>> And, yet
>>> “t’ is
>>> not a
>>> directly
>>> measurable
>>> physical
>>> parameter
>>> of any
>>> object
>>> in this
>>> universe.
>>> What we
>>> measure
>>> is
>>> really
>>> the
>>> frequency,
>>> or its
>>> inverse,
>>> the
>>> oscillation
>>> periods
>>> of
>>> different
>>> physical
>>> oscillators
>>> in this
>>> universe.
>>> So,
>>> frequency
>>> can be
>>> dilated
>>> or
>>> contracted
>>> by
>>> controlling
>>> the
>>> ambient
>>> physical
>>> parameter
>>> of the
>>> environment
>>> that
>>> surrounds
>>> and
>>> INFLUENCES
>>> the
>>> oscillator.
>>> The
>>> running
>>> time
>>> cannot
>>> be
>>> dilated
>>> or
>>> contracted;
>>> even
>>> though
>>> Minkowsky
>>> introduced
>>> this
>>> “dilation”
>>> concept.
>>> This is
>>> the
>>> reason
>>> why I
>>> have
>>> been
>>> pushing
>>> for the
>>> introduction
>>> in
>>> physics
>>> thinking
>>> the
>>> Interaction
>>> Process
>>> Mapping
>>> Epistemology
>>> (IPM-E).
>>>
>>> Chandra.
>>>
>>> *From:*General
>>> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of
>>> *Wolfgang
>>> Baer
>>> *Sent:*
>>> Monday,
>>> February
>>> 19, 2018
>>> 10:56 PM
>>> *To:*
>>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>> *Subject:*
>>> Re:
>>> [General]
>>> Foundational
>>> questions
>>> Tension
>>> field
>>> stable
>>> particles
>>>
>>> Candra:
>>>
>>> Let’s
>>> consider
>>> your
>>> tension
>>> filed is
>>> a medium
>>> underlying
>>> the
>>> experience
>>> of space
>>> composed
>>> of
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> density
>>> spread
>>> out in
>>> the
>>> cross-section
>>> of a
>>> time
>>> loop..
>>> Coordinate
>>> frame
>>> cells of
>>> /small
>>> enough/
>>> sizes
>>> can be
>>> described
>>> by
>>> constant
>>> enough
>>> mass and
>>> charge
>>> densities
>>> in each
>>> cell.
>>> For
>>> small
>>> enough
>>> cells
>>> the mass
>>> and
>>> charge
>>> values
>>> concentrated
>>> at their
>>> centers
>>> may be
>>> used in
>>> stead of
>>> the
>>> densities.
>>> The
>>> resulting
>>> field of
>>> center
>>> values
>>> can take
>>> any
>>> pattern
>>> that
>>> satisfies
>>> the
>>> extended
>>> dAlambert
>>> principle.
>>> Besides
>>> the
>>> classic
>>> electro-magnetic
>>> Fem and
>>> gravito-inertial
>>> force
>>> Fgi I
>>> postulate
>>> forces
>>> tat hold
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> together
>>> Fcm,
>>> Fmc.
>>> This
>>> condition
>>> assures
>>> mass
>>> charge
>>> centers
>>> in each
>>> cell
>>> appear
>>> at
>>> locations
>>> of
>>> balanced
>>> forces.
>>> Each
>>> pattern
>>> which
>>> satisfies
>>> this
>>> condition
>>> represents
>>> a static
>>> state of
>>> the loop
>>> in which
>>> the
>>> patterns
>>> are
>>> fixed
>>> for the
>>> lifetime
>>> of the loop.
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>> *The
>>> Charge-Mass
>>> Separation
>>> Vector
>>> and
>>> Equilibrium
>>> States*
>>>
>>> The
>>> physical
>>> size of
>>> the
>>> space is
>>> its
>>> volume.
>>> The
>>> volume
>>> (Vol) of
>>> space is
>>> the sum
>>> of the
>>> infinitesimal
>>> volumes
>>> dVol of
>>> each of
>>> the
>>> cells
>>> composing
>>> that
>>> space
>>> “Vol =
>>> ∫_all
>>> space
>>> dVol”.
>>> These
>>> infinitesimal
>>> volumes
>>> are
>>> calculated
>>> from the
>>> mass-charge
>>> density
>>> extensions
>>> in each
>>> cell
>>> when
>>> viewed
>>> externally
>>> as shown
>>> in
>>> figure
>>> 4.3-3a .
>>> The
>>> physical
>>> volume
>>> depends
>>> upon the
>>> mass
>>> charge
>>> separation
>>> pattern
>>> of the
>>> equilibrium
>>> state
>>> the
>>> system
>>> being
>>> modeled
>>> exists in.
>>>
>>> In CAT
>>> the
>>> extension
>>> of a
>>> cell can
>>> be
>>> calculated
>>> as
>>> follows.
>>> In each
>>> cell the
>>> distance
>>> between
>>> the
>>> center
>>> of
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> is a
>>> vector
>>> d*ζ.*
>>> The
>>> projection
>>> of this
>>> vector
>>> onto the
>>> degrees
>>> of
>>> freedom
>>> directions
>>> available
>>> for the
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> to move
>>> in the
>>> generalized
>>> coordinate
>>> space
>>> allows
>>> us to
>>> expansion
>>> this
>>> vector as,
>>>
>>> Eq.
>>> 4.3-1
>>> *dζ =*
>>> dζ_t
>>> *∙u_t *
>>> + dζ_x
>>> *∙u_x *+
>>> dζ_y
>>> *∙u_y *+
>>> dζ_z
>>> *∙u_z
>>> +…* dζ_f
>>> *∙u_f +…,*
>>>
>>> **where
>>> the *u_f
>>> *’s are
>>> the unit
>>> vectors.
>>> A space
>>> limited
>>> to
>>> Cartesian
>>> 3-space
>>> is
>>> characterized
>>> by three
>>> x,y,z
>>> directions,
>>> but CAT
>>> models a
>>> generalized
>>> space
>>> that
>>> encompasses
>>> all
>>> sensor
>>> modalities
>>> not only
>>> the
>>> optical
>>> ones.
>>>
>>> The
>>> volume
>>> of a
>>> cell
>>> calculated
>>> from the
>>> diagonal
>>> expansion
>>> vector
>>> “*dζ”*
>>> by
>>> multiplying
>>> all non
>>> zero
>>> coefficients,
>>>
>>> Eq.
>>> 4.3-2
>>> dVol =
>>> dζ_t
>>> *∙*dζ_x
>>> *∙*dζ_y
>>> *∙*dζ_z
>>> *∙…∙*dζ_f
>>> *∙… .*
>>>
>>> The
>>> shape of
>>> this
>>> volume
>>> is
>>> determined
>>> by the
>>> direction
>>> of the
>>> expansion
>>> vector
>>> which in
>>> turn is
>>> determined
>>> by the
>>> direction
>>> and
>>> strength
>>> of
>>> forces
>>> pulling
>>> the
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> apart.
>>> The
>>> direction
>>> of pull
>>> depends
>>> upon the
>>> number
>>> of
>>> dimensions
>>> available
>>> in the
>>> generalized
>>> coordinates
>>> of the
>>> media.
>>> The
>>> forces
>>> must be
>>> in
>>> equilibrium
>>> but
>>> exact
>>> equilibrium
>>> pattern
>>> depends
>>> upon
>>> which
>>> global
>>> loop
>>> equilibrium
>>> state
>>> “Ζ” the
>>> event
>>> being
>>> modeled
>>> is in.
>>>
>>> In the
>>> simplest
>>> equilibrium
>>> state
>>> the
>>> masses
>>> and
>>> charges
>>> are
>>> collocated.
>>> This
>>> implies
>>> the
>>> internal
>>> forward
>>> propagating
>>> in time
>>> forces
>>> F_cm
>>> ,F_mc ,
>>> and
>>> backward
>>> propagating
>>> in time
>>> force
>>> F_mc
>>> *,F_cm *
>>> are
>>> zero,
>>> and if
>>> there
>>> are no
>>> internal
>>> force
>>> pulling
>>> the
>>> charges
>>> and
>>> masses
>>> together
>>> then sum
>>> of the
>>> remaining
>>> exterior
>>> gravito-electric
>>> forces
>>> pulling
>>> the
>>> charge
>>> and mass
>>> apart
>>> must
>>> separately
>>> be zero
>>> precisely
>>> at the
>>> collocation
>>> point. A
>>> trivial
>>> condition
>>> that
>>> satisfies
>>> these
>>> equations
>>> is when
>>> all
>>> forces
>>> are
>>> zero. In
>>> this
>>> case
>>> there is
>>> no
>>> action
>>> in the
>>> media
>>> and no
>>> action
>>> for
>>> expanding
>>> the
>>> coordinate
>>> frame
>>> defining
>>> a volume
>>> of
>>> space.
>>> We are
>>> back to
>>> a
>>> formless
>>> blob of
>>> zero
>>> volume,
>>> where
>>> all
>>> charges
>>> and
>>> masses
>>> are at
>>> the same
>>> point.
>>> This is
>>> the
>>> absolute
>>> ground
>>> state of
>>> material,
>>> one
>>> level of
>>> something
>>> above
>>> nothing.
>>> The big
>>> bang
>>> before
>>> the
>>> energy
>>> of
>>> action
>>> flow is
>>> added.
>>>
>>> To
>>> exemplify
>>> the
>>> methods
>>> we
>>> consider
>>> an
>>> equilibrium
>>> state of
>>> a single
>>> isolated
>>> cell
>>> whose
>>> only
>>> degree
>>> of
>>> freedom
>>> is the
>>> time
>>> direction.
>>> This
>>> means
>>> the
>>> volume
>>> in all
>>> space
>>> directions
>>> are
>>> infinitesimally
>>> small
>>> and the
>>> volume
>>> can be
>>> considered
>>> a single
>>> line of
>>> extension
>>> “ΔVol =
>>> ΔT_w =
>>> ∫dζ_t “
>>> along
>>> the time
>>> direction
>>> as shown
>>> in the
>>> god’s
>>> eye
>>> perspective
>>> of
>>> figure
>>> 4.3-6.
>>> In this
>>> situation
>>> we can
>>> consider
>>> charges
>>> and
>>> masses
>>> to be
>>> point
>>> particles.
>>> Forces
>>> as well
>>> as
>>> action
>>> can only
>>> propagate
>>> along
>>> the
>>> material
>>> length
>>> of the
>>> line
>>> time
>>> line
>>> represented
>>> in space
>>> as “Qw”.
>>> We now
>>> list the
>>> sequence
>>> of
>>> changes
>>> that can
>>> propagate
>>> through
>>> around
>>> the
>>> equilibrium
>>> positions
>>> indicated
>>> by
>>> numbers
>>> in
>>> parenthesis.
>>>
>>> (1)The
>>> upper
>>> charge
>>> is
>>> pushed
>>> from its
>>> equilibrium
>>> position
>>> (filled
>>> icon)
>>> forward
>>> along
>>> the time
>>> line
>>>
>>> (2)It
>>> exerts a
>>> force
>>> “Fem” on
>>> the left
>>> charge
>>> pushing
>>> it
>>> forward
>>> while
>>> feeling
>>> a
>>> reaction
>>> force
>>> “Fem*”
>>> that
>>> retards
>>> it back
>>> to its
>>> equilibrium
>>> position
>>>
>>> (3)While
>>> the left
>>> charge
>>> is moved
>>> from
>>> equilibrium
>>> it
>>> exerts
>>> an
>>> internal
>>> “Fcm”
>>> force on
>>> the
>>> bottom
>>> mass
>>> while
>>> feeling
>>> a
>>> reaction
>>> force
>>> “Fcm*”
>>> which
>>> returns
>>> it to
>>> equilibrium.
>>>
>>> (4)While
>>> the
>>> bottom
>>> mass is
>>> moved
>>> from
>>> equilibrium
>>> it
>>> exerts a
>>> force
>>> “Fgi” on
>>> the
>>> right
>>> mass
>>> while
>>> feeling
>>> a
>>> reaction
>>> force
>>> “Fgi*”
>>> which
>>> returns
>>> it to
>>> equilibrium.
>>>
>>> (5)While
>>> the
>>> right
>>> mass is
>>> moved
>>> from
>>> equilibrium
>>> it
>>> exerts a
>>> force
>>> “Fmc” on
>>> the
>>> upper
>>> charge
>>> while
>>> feeling
>>> a
>>> reaction
>>> force
>>> “Fmc*”
>>> which
>>> returns
>>> it to
>>> equilibrium.
>>> We are
>>> now back
>>> to (1).
>>>
>>> If the
>>> system
>>> is
>>> isolated
>>> there is
>>> no
>>> dissipation
>>> into
>>> other
>>> degrees
>>> of
>>> freedom
>>> and the
>>> oscillation
>>> continues
>>> to move
>>> as a
>>> compression
>>> wave
>>> around
>>> the “Qw”
>>> time
>>> line
>>> circumference
>>> forever.
>>> The
>>> graph
>>> however
>>> is
>>> static
>>> and
>>> shows a
>>> fixed
>>> amount
>>> of
>>> action
>>> indicated
>>> by the
>>> shaded
>>> arrows
>>> around
>>> the time
>>> line.
>>> Motion
>>> in
>>> “block”
>>> models
>>> is
>>> produced
>>> by the
>>> velocity
>>> of the
>>> observer
>>> or model
>>> operator
>>> as he
>>> moves
>>> around
>>> the time
>>> line.
>>> From our
>>> god’s
>>> eye
>>> perspective
>>> an
>>> action
>>> density
>>> is
>>> permanently
>>> painted
>>> on the
>>> clock
>>> dial and
>>> thereby
>>> describes
>>> an total
>>> event.
>>> The last
>>> degree
>>> of
>>> freedom
>>> events
>>> are
>>> rather
>>> trivial
>>>
>>> We need
>>> a
>>> geometry
>>> in which
>>> both
>>> space
>>> and time
>>> are
>>> curved
>>> back on
>>> themselves
>>> to
>>> provide
>>> a donut
>>> in which
>>> the
>>> forces
>>> Fem,
>>> Fgi,
>>> Fcm,Fmc
>>> are self
>>> contained
>>> eigen
>>> states
>>> at each
>>> action
>>> quanta.
>>>
>>> Does any
>>> of this
>>> suggest
>>> a
>>> tension
>>> field
>>> you
>>> might be
>>> thinking
>>> about??
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> On
>>> 1/24/2018
>>> 7:20 PM,
>>> Roychoudhuri,
>>> Chandra
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> Yes,
>>> I
>>> have
>>> submitted
>>> an
>>> essay.
>>> FQXi
>>> has
>>> not
>>> sent
>>> the
>>> approval
>>> link
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> 2.
>>> Replacement
>>> of
>>> our
>>> SPIE
>>> conf.
>>> Without
>>> a
>>> supporting
>>> infrastructure
>>> to
>>> replace
>>> SPIE-like
>>> support,
>>> it
>>> is
>>> very
>>> difficult
>>> to
>>> manage.
>>> I
>>> will
>>> try
>>> NSF
>>> during
>>> the
>>> last
>>> week
>>> of
>>> May.
>>> Do
>>> you
>>> want
>>> to
>>> start
>>> negotiating
>>> with
>>> some
>>> out-of-box
>>> European
>>> groups?
>>>
>>> 3.
>>> Re-starting
>>> afresh
>>> from
>>> the
>>> bottom
>>> up
>>> is
>>> the
>>> only
>>> way
>>> to
>>> start
>>> re-building
>>> a
>>> unified
>>> field
>>> theory.
>>> It
>>> is
>>> futile
>>> to
>>> force-fit
>>> whole
>>> bunch
>>> of
>>> different
>>> theories
>>> that
>>> were
>>> structured
>>> differently
>>> at
>>> different
>>> states
>>> of
>>> human
>>> cultural
>>> epoch.
>>>
>>> Sent
>>> from
>>> my
>>> iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On
>>> Jan
>>> 24,
>>> 2018,
>>> at
>>> 6:08
>>> PM,
>>> Wolfgang
>>> Baer
>>> <wolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chandra:
>>>
>>> Just
>>> rereading
>>> your
>>> 2015
>>> paper
>>> "Urgency
>>> of
>>> evolution..."
>>>
>>> I
>>> love
>>> the
>>> sentiment
>>> "
>>> This
>>> is
>>> a
>>> good
>>> time
>>> to
>>> start
>>> iteratively
>>> re-evaluating
>>> and
>>> restructuring
>>> all
>>> the
>>> foundational
>>> postulates
>>> behind
>>> all
>>> the
>>> working
>>> theories"
>>>
>>> Did
>>> you
>>> write
>>> a
>>> paper
>>> for
>>> FQXi?
>>>
>>> I
>>> sent
>>> one
>>> in
>>> https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3043
>>>
>>> Is
>>> there
>>> any
>>> chance
>>> to
>>> get
>>> a
>>> replacement
>>> for
>>> the
>>> SPIE
>>> conference,
>>> one
>>> that
>>> would
>>> expand
>>> the
>>> questions
>>>
>>>
>>> beyond
>>> the
>>> nature
>>> of
>>> light?
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>
>>> Research Director
>>>
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If
>>> you
>>> no
>>> longer
>>> wish
>>> to
>>> receive
>>> communication
>>> from
>>> the
>>> Nature
>>> of
>>> Light
>>> and
>>> Particles
>>> General
>>> Discussion
>>> List
>>> at
>>> chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
>>> <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
>>> <a
>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/chandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click
>>> here
>>> to
>>> unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>>> <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>>
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>>
>>> </a>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
>>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180326/bcbbf9b1/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/20180326/bcbbf9b1/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/20180326/bcbbf9b1/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/20180326/bcbbf9b1/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/20180326/bcbbf9b1/attachment-0001.png>