<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12685"><span>John H</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12527"><span><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12527"><span id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13840">For the walking drops, I agree that if EM is not part of the solution, there most likely will be major issues. </span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12527"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12527" dir="ltr">Yes, there appears to be another level to the particle-wave universe underneath the elementary particle layer. Can we distinguish whether the electron is photonc or quanta, or did the photon morph, transmute or transform into something other than a photon. My gut says all of us should be hammering on building another layer. At the same time, this won't happen from the photonic electron but require an understanding of quarks and perhaps neutrinos and gluons. And that conjecture is based on the assumption that we know the essentials of elementary particles to do so. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12527"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12528" dir="ltr">As a useful tool for physicists, Popper falsification allows some heavy filtering of ideas, conjectures and musings. My view is that falsification by one experiment raises the bar fairly high but does not permanently block that line of reasoning no matter how ill conceived, conjectured or even fantasized which is more of a mathematicians approach. A lot more rigorous work will be required to refute falsification of an experiment.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12528" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12528" dir="ltr">Statistically, if the experiment has been done correctly and not misinterpreted, the odds and therefore the risk of repeating the experiment go up if only for research budget purposes. In order to challenge a falsification, the history and context of assumptions, and boundary conditions need to be clearly understood for the experiment, the theory the experiment is testing, and the equipment being used.</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12528" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr" class="">Can we falsify whether it's EM or E&M? The physicists seem to say EM while the engineer says E&M. The simple fact is that under certain conditions E and M are closely coupled. There are two views that are possible: EM and E&M. EM is one, united and inseparable. The other is that E&M are to be treated as separable and closely coupled under certain conditions (photon) . Now, both views rely on the same equations whether they be the Maxwell 20 (original), Maxwell Heaviside (4), Dirac symmetric version- or Barrett extensions - SU(N). Each can be expressed mathematically by in vector, tensor, differential or quaternion forms. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr" class=""><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr" class="">Given that a mainstream approach seriously limits inquiry by a fear of exceeding the speed of light, the uncertainty of measurement, and the strong doubt cast by the shadow of Popper falsifiability, one is left to wonder if physicists have painted themselves and the rest of science into a corner. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr">What is puzzling to me is that Dirac equations predicted successfully antimatter (positron) but to date, the monopole has not emerged in experiments. Can the monopole be falsified? Can the quark?</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr">Then again, despite various theories, for elementary particles there remains one key question..."what is the source of charge". </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12529" dir="ltr"><br></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12528" dir="ltr" class="">Essentially, an experimenter "...has got to know their limits." (Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry). </div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class=""><br id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13780" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class="">"Subtle is the Lrd." A Einstein<br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class=""><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class="">YMMV</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class=""><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class="">Best regards</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class=""><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_13778" class="">David</div><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12496"><br></div><br> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-left: 5px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12454"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12453"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12452"> <div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12451"> <hr size="1" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12450"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12455"> <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12538"><span style="font-weight:bold;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12537">From:</span></b> Hodge John <jchodge@frontier.com><br> <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12540"><span style="font-weight: bold;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12539">To:</span></b> "general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, November 8, 2015 11:05 AM<br> <b id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12536"><span style="font-weight: bold;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12535">Subject:</span></b> [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<br> </font> </div> <div class="y_msg_container" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12532"><br><div id="yiv6145355034"><div id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12534"><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;" id="yui_3_16_0_1_1447019841125_12533"><div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2496">
</div><div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2562" class="yiv6145355034">David</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2564" class="yiv6145355034">Thanks for the thought.</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2566" class="yiv6145355034">You seem to be more familiar with Popper than I. I thought
Popper dealt with “refutation” in connection with models and ability to be
falsified as being a requirement for a model to be a “scientific”. If evolution
cannot be falsified, then wouldn’t Popper consider it not a science? But
evolution did predict fossils of evolving species would be found. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2568" class="yiv6145355034">A single experiment is enough to reject a (hypothesis)
theory within some domain. Both quantum mechanics and cosmology reject each
other in the domain of a ToE. The comment was trying to suggest that the
inability of a model to explain an experiment within the domain that the model
is supposed to apply is cause for rejection. A “null” result is a “no test”
done result. For example, Galileo tried to find parallax in stars to support
the heliocentric model. He had a null result that resulted in some trouble with
the Church. More accurate equipment in the 1830s finally saw parallax and
heliocentricism was accepted. The same is true in the case of the
Michelson–Morley<b class="yiv6145355034" id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2570"> </b>experiment. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2572" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2574" class="yiv6145355034">(see also John W comment where he agrees with David) The
deviations from expectaion in experiments have lead to finding several emergent
properties of nature. Indeed, deviation for expectation causes the postulate of
hidden variables rather than suggesting lack of a proper model. Further, the
finding of data that is poorly explained is an indication of the need for a new
model. Sometime the new data is so radical, a complete rethink is needed. Until
that is done, ad hoc additions are made such as Dark Energy, Dark Mass,
inflation, etc and models become very complex. So, I suggest, simplification is
needed but simplification usually requires redefinition of what is basic. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2576" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2578" class="yiv6145355034">I’m unsure of your interpretation of the Uncertainty
Principle as an experimental error. I had understood the photoelectric effect
measurement of energy vs frequency (slope <i class="yiv6145355034" id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2580">h</i>) to have steps in the linear
relationship. The idea of steps suggests the quanta and the non-existence of an
inbetween state. The measurement was well within the experimental error. That
is it’s not so much a tool limit as a fundamental existence limit.</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2582" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2584" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2586" class="yiv6145355034">Richard</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2588" class="yiv6145355034">Thanks</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2590" class="yiv6145355034">In my opinion, our instruments detect matter not the waves.
The waves in the fluid is the fluid of the underlying tension of the molecules.
</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2592" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2594" class="yiv6145355034">I think the matter photon is guided by the pilot wave. If
you are you using “wave function” to mean the probability energy density,
probability functions don’t “guide”. However, I suggest (and I think Bohm does,
too) the the pilot wave is real and the \Psi ^* \Psi is a characteristic of the
pilot wave and not a probability function. The nest step is to suggest what the
\Psi^* is in reality. Photons need a property of coherence for diffraction to
occur. The nature of coherence is unknown. I suggest the Bohm interpretation is
suggesting photons do require guidance to the screen if an interference pattern
is noted. At least in my model pilot waves exist (are real) for both electrons
and photons. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2596" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2598" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2600" class="yiv6145355034">John W</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2602" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2604" class="yiv6145355034">The Bohm Interpretaion was under discussion a bit ago. The
statement about source was directed to the Bohm model. Certainly, other models
have similar problem with the source of their action and particularity where is
the energy for the interaction coming from or does the interaction involve no
net gain or loss. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2606" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2608" class="yiv6145355034">I like the idea of a single entity in an experiment at a
time or, at least, one entity beyond the mask. However, I allow the possibility
that the determination of one entity in the experiment at a time could be the
result of averaging of a pulse with fewer pulses. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2610" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2612" class="yiv6145355034">I think you are using “dimension” to mean mathematical
parameters. I use “dimension” to mean real special extents (limit 3). I’m
unsure how to classify time. At any special point there could be scalar or
vector or tensor values mathematically. However, I like the scalar model
because the forces can be vectors (tensor) through divergence. The
electromagnetic comments beg the question “What are the basic constituents of
the universe? Simpler but yet complete is better. I suggest a continuous and
matter like Bohm. What are your basic? I’m left with explaining
electromagnetism with the interaction of the 2 components.<span class="yiv6145355034" id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2614" style=""> </span></div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2616" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2618" class="yiv6145355034">Although the walking drop analogy is limited, it does
produce the interference pattern. So the question becomes what characteristics
of the walking drop observations produce diffraction - energy input need not be
one of them. If the walking drop doesn’t involve electromagnetism, I think a
model based on electromagnetism has difficulty. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2620" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2622" class="yiv6145355034">“Space” can have no mass - the boat and water were analogies
in the classical realm.</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2624" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2626" class="yiv6145355034">The y and y* were translated incorrectly. They were meant to
be \Psi and \Psi*. However, You hit on the same realization I did - that the \Psi*
is just the part of a standing wave in the Transaction Interpretation of the
wave returning to the source (the particle) rather than the future wave
manifest in the present. This could provide the Bohm requirement of “reality”
to the \Psi. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2628" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2630" class="yiv6145355034">Please provide a reference for your / Martin’s paper to
which you are referring.</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2632" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2634" class="yiv6145355034">Although I haven’t read you paper, perhaps my experiment in
my last paper is such an example. It is if it relies upon Huygens-Fresnel.</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2636" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2638" class="yiv6145355034">Thanks for your comments. </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2640" class="yiv6145355034"> </div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2642" class="yiv6145355034">Hodge</div>
<div id="yiv6145355034yui_3_16_0_1_1447009445155_2644" class="yiv6145355034"> </div><div dir="ltr">
</div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a ymailto="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com" href="mailto:davidmathes8@yahoo.com">davidmathes8@yahoo.com</a><br><a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>Click here to unsubscribe<br></a><br><br><br></div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div></body></html>