<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
h2
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:18.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
span.Heading2Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 2 Char";
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-link:"Heading 2";
font-family:"Calibri Light","sans-serif";
color:#2E74B5;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.hvr
{mso-style-name:hvr;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:943222373;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1487761304 325879546 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:.75in;
text-indent:-.5in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Hi Chip: Yes, we are in agreement philosophically.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Just like “time”, most of the physical parameters in our successful theories, are our best guesses. We define and determine what parameters we can measure by virtue of our imaginations and the
“observed” physical transformations that we perceive (“see”) in our instruments. So, most likely, they do not represent ontological cosmic parameters. “Time” cannot be contracted or dilated; oscillatory frequency can be; even though “time” is an essential
concept in human life. We are born and then eventually die after a TIME INTERVAL!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">The other big one is “mass”. There is no “mass” as the amount of “material content” in a body. We know that for about 110 years. “Mass” is the inertial property to movement of “particles” which
are localized energetic oscillations of the Complex Tension Field (CTF). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">This is why I am proposing that our group does the following; if interested:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(i)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Create a list of all the major working theories.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(ii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">For each working theory, we make the best possible list of the foundational postulates, preferably taking directly out of the original publications by the founder of the theory.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(iii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Then, all the participants spend time and re-write the postulates along with separate explanatory (justification) paragraphs based upon our personal current understanding. These justifications
will show wide variations because we all are interpreting our current understanding of physics differently.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(iv)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Then we work hard for a while to create a small set of different Convergent Postulate Sets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:.75in;text-indent:-.5in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<![if !supportLists]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">(v)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Then the subscribers to different Convergent Postulate Sets can separate out and start to contribute within their own group.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">If this suggestion is acceptable, let me know and then we can start defining a functional strategy. We can definitely create an important book within a couple of years; which can re-set the direction
of physics research (of course, without being able to present the final Unified Field Theory!)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:black">PS: My dislike of Special Relativity can be appreciated from my recent submission to NASA in response to an official “Request for Information” (3 and1/2 page long). Of course, I have not received
any response! “It is too controversial”! In modern age, Physics is done by democratic consensus; rather than by seeking actual reality of nature!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 4:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then it seems we are in agreement regarding the time of the universe. In my contemplations it has occurred to me that we cannot measure a reference “time” because we are moving and we don’t yet have any way to tell when we are absolutely
stationary with respect to space. And then even if we could be perfectly “at rest” in space, what is it that we would measure? We measure the reactions and interactions of moving particles and fields. No matter how “slow” or how “fast” those are occurring
related to some “time standard” upon which all may exists, <i>all we can measure are the relationships between the reaction rates of things we can sense.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is like some of the artificial intelligence programming I have done. If we create an environment which has events which occur serially, and we do not supply any external “reference timer” input. Then for the artificial environment
we have created, there is no reference for time, other than the comparative rate of different serial events.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We find ourselves in such a situation. The only measurement we have for time is to compare the rate of different serially occurring events. By experiment we have been able to deduce that the relationships between the rates of certain
kinds of serial events (oscillations) is quite predictable in the circumstances we have experienced and measured. We have also been able to determine some specific enduring relationships between the
<i>time we can measure</i> and the dynamics of particles and fields. So it is still quite useful to use the time we can measure to better understand the workings of the universe. For the immediate puzzles, that is all we have to work with.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In other words the physical relationships which dictate the properties of nature are valid in our universe regardless of whether we choose to express them in terms of oscillations, periods, frequency, time, etc. These are still just mathematical
expressions which allow us to express the “temporal” and “spatial” <i>relationships which comprise the dynamics of our universe</i>. And the universe and all that is in it is dynamic, it changes, so there exists a temporal component to that universe, whether
biological systems are complex enough to perceive that temporal component and call it “time” or not. But this thing we call “time” may not have any further meaning other than within the “constraints” of the physical universe. But of course that is quite sufficient
for our current purposes isn’t it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmest Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> General [<a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 12:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chip: The problem is that my personal understanding of the deeper nature of nature is still evolving and I am still in the learning mode. So, out of my human-like enthusiasm, I do “put my foot in my mouth”
many a times. But, being a life-long experimentalist, I do maintain the mental means of anchoring myself back with nature to recognize what I really do not fully understand. And, TIME is definitely one of them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">It is the natural frequency of various objects that we measure. Inverting the frequency that gives us a “period”, or a “time interval”, unique to the oscillator in whichever physical platform (coordinate system)
it is being held. Nobody can measure the absolute running time except the creator, if there exists such a conscious being! It is true that everything small in this universe, has a finite life-time-interval; which gives us the illusion of running time. My
key point is that we can measure various resonant frequencies and also can alter many of these frequencies by changing the their physical environments; but, we humans, have not yet learnt to measure or keep track of the universal running time and alter that
running time as it is not a physical parameter for alteration. We do not know, for sure, that the universe we are living in, is really 13.5 Billion earthly-human years! Let us not freeze our enquiring minds; the best evolutionary gift we have got from nature!
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">The history of physics confirms to us that our primary means of keeping ourselves anchored to nature’s reality is experiment. That is why I chose to learn one sub-field of physics, optics, through life long
experimentations. And, finally I recognize that our current approach of doing physics is based upon the following three steps: (i) Creating postulates using human-mental-logics after deep and broad observations of natural phenomena; (ii) then creating a decent
theory out of human-mind invented mathematical logics; and then (iii) validating the theory through human-logics-driven INTERPRETATIONS of diverse experimental validations. But the recognition that Physics has been stagnant for quite a few decades, requires
us question whether the above three-step approach represents our final epistemology.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">So far, we, humans, have been happy with our progress in understanding natural phenomena reasonably well. Fortunately, to preserve the persistent evolution of the enquiring-component of the human minds (evolved
as a thinking animal); we are beginning to recognizing that the three steps mentioned above, all are subject to human-cultural subjectivism –
<b><i>we become victim of our own working concepts as if they are the final ones</i></b>. I am observing this tendency all around, within this debate-forum; which also includes me! However, in my earlier publications and in the recent book, I have added fourth
repertoire to our modeling nature: (iv) we must repeatedly and interactively apply Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) before interpreting all experimental data. Assuming nature is systematically causal and perpetually evolving, the interaction
processes that give rise to this evolving universe, must also be causal and ontologically real. Thus, imagining nature’s actual interaction process, albeit being invisible, is a new critical element of thinking that must be added to physics; albeit the fact
that this was categorically denied by the leaders of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is time for us, a la Newton, to stand on the collective shoulders of all the predecessor giants and keep on increasing our knowledge horizon; instead of remaining victim
of our collective Messiah Complex, and bow down our heads to keep frozen the range of our knowledge horizon already handed over to us.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Fortunately, my re-discovery of the generalized principle of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) forced me to posit that we must revive “ether” back in physics, but as a pure Complex Tension Filed; which is the
“platform” in which everything COMES INTO BEING as various forms of harmonic oscillations; some are propagating waves and some are localized resonant self-looped oscillations. Of course, these thoughts happen to coincide with those of many past great thinkers.
But, combining (i) NIW with (ii) the stationary CTF as a pure filed holding the 100%of the energy of the universe; brings a much wider range of harmony (unification) from bottom up; not just enforced from the top using mathematical symmetry. The NIW and CTF
provides a better platform for the unification of physics than trying to forcefully merge the two incomplete theories, QM and GR into one. It is a bit less than a century that such attempts have been failing repeatedly. [By the way, Huygens, the original proponent
of the process behind wave propagation had clearly articulated the NIW-property of EM waves. Fresnel formulated the wave propagation integral (1817?), now known as the Huygens-Fresnel Diffraction Integral, works because the NIW-property is built into it. And,
further, HF-integral is a solution of Maxwell’s wave equation! Then, Planck, the father of the concept of quantized amount of light emission from atoms and molecules (unlike Hertzian oscillators), explicitly articulated that EM waves pass through each other
completely unperturbed (think NIW). But, we are remaining under the Einsteinian spell of “what are indivisible light quanta?”; even though Einstein himself was questioning his 1905 assumption 50-years later, shortly before his death. [This is why we have
created the “What are photons?”, San Diego, conference series and also this web-forum.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">As I have mentioned earlier that we have been tacitly assuming that the space (CTF or not) is stationary by assuming that the Doppler frequency shifts and local Doppler broadening of atomic and molecular spectra
during the time of emissions in distant stars represent the local velocities of the molecules and that of the star as a whole. So, we are assimilating and accepting a lot of built-in contradictions in our physics assumptions without questioning! We have been
trained to subvert our own enquiring minds for the need to live peacefully within our social culture. [Read “Excellent Sheep” by a Yale education professor.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">So, I am of the opinion that it is time for us to create a group with people who really believe that all the foundational postulates behind every singly major working theories of physics must be (i) gathered
and listed, (ii) critically reviewed in light of latest understanding and re-phrased; giving rise to a new integrated foundational set of postulate that will help us formulate a unified field theory based truly upon a common (unified) field, the CTF (or, something
similar). The foundational postulates behind GR and QM were formulated from very different philosophical platforms; they are not integrate-able!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Chip Akins<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 10:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'Albrecht Giese'; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Fwd: RE: Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Chandra and all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The universe is filled with things (collections of atoms), material objects, moving at different speeds, and in different directions. We need some way of expressing, in human language, a description of these different velocity vectors,
and the resultant conditions caused by the motions. The conventional means of description has been to refer to these material objects with different velocity vectors, as being in different “inertial frames”. However I understand why one might object to using
this terminology for the description of motion. Nonetheless, we need to understand why we measure the things we measure, and we need to be able to communicate those concepts in language which is easily understandable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My personal belief is that Einstein was indeed a brilliant man, but that SR and GR are simply founded on the wrong set of starting premises.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we start with the assumption that mass is comprised of energy, and that particles of matter are made of the same “stuff” which makes light, and that the fundamental energy which makes up matter and light always propagates at a finite
velocity. Instead of starting with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in any moving frame. Then we arrive at a clear and specific definition for relativistic phenomena, and a specific reason that we see oscillations slow with motion, and
lengths change with motion. Not surprisingly we can also see causes for things like de Broglie’s wavelength, and transverse contraction of fermionic particles using the same starting premises.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If your CTF is the stationary medium of space, then the relativistic phenomena mentioned above are a natural consequence. If any in the group is interested I can show you the math and the logic which compels this conclusion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly this approach also provides a precise means for mathematical description of inertial mass of fermionic particles.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra: The discussion regarding time is interesting. Of course in physics we do not have any means of representing motion without a component of time. And motion, the dynamics of things, is what the universe is made of. So I cannot
dismiss time as being a requisite component of the universe. Our concept of time is of course dictated by the action and behavior of particles and fields. But without a form of time in the universe there could be no motion, no dynamics, no interactions,
and no universe as we know it. So I do not understand your comment about “running time”. The dynamics of “energy” propagating through space, wave motion, requires a component of time, in order for “propagation” to evolve and progress. I understand that
our concept of time is based on complex actions, several layers above this most fundamental motion of space, so the “time” of the universe is only obvious to us in the dynamics we can observe. But if there is motion of any sort there must be time.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps I did not understand what you were saying.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext"> General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 07, 2015 8:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra <</span><a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <</span><a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Fwd: RE: Reply of comments from what a model…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 28 Nov 2015 17:15 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Albrecht: My responses are within your text below in blue ink.</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Attached documents will give further details.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0B0FC5">Chandra</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
Albrecht Giese [</span><a href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">mailto:genmail@a-giese.de</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, November 27, 2015 3:05 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chandra,<br>
<br>
thank you for your explanations. </span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:10.0pt">However what's about your statement: </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">"So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere in this universe"? On the other hand you assume a
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF)</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">. In my understanding, the CTF is just an example of an absolute frame of reference. How not?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">CTF is the ONLY universally stationary field in which everything, stars and us, are manifest as diverse assemblies of localized oscillations.
We do not have multiple separate Inertial Frames for different observers. We all are in moving frames. EM waves are excitations of this stationary CTF and hence has the same velocity, c, everywhere in the universe. When the space volume of the CTF is regionally
filled with different kinds of local oscillator-assemblies (atoms and molecules); the CTF tension values are reduced and the velocities of the EM waves are also reduced.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">Maybe a problem of wording, but what you describe here is in my understanding just an absolute frame of reference of the kind by which e.g. Hendrik Lorentz has based his interpretation
of relativity. <br>
<br>
The other question is whether your assumption of the CTF provides easier solutions to our questions in physics than an "empty" space.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">==============</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
By the way, I do not see SR (or GR) as the foundation of physics. But we have relativistic phenomena, which are not fundamental for our physical world, but certain facts which happen. I attribute the relativistic phenomena to certain processes of particles
and field, as you may have noticed.<br>
<br>
Let's take an example which is quite simple. If we move a clock, then the </span>
<b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">clock runs slower</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">. This can easily be verified if we move an atomic clock. The same is true for all temporal processes and events in physics. Now,
if one star moves with respect to another one, all temporal processes run more slowly. This is a fact which we cannot deny. If we are now on a moving star and observe that the physical processes are similar to those on a star at rest, then they cannot be the
same, but the effects of motion just compensate each other. <br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">There is nothing in this universe that keeps track of RUNNING TIME. This concept is a pure figment of imagination by Humans; albeit being very pragmatic and we have also invented reproducible machines
to display the conceptual “RUNNING TIME”. But, in reality, we use precision oscillators and count the number of complete oscillations the oscillator has executed. For a pendulum-clock, the return of the pendulum at the same physical location gives us the frequency.
Human math inverts this frequency into a PERIOD, and thinks of it as a TIME INTERVAL. For atomic clocks, it is the frequency of the EM wave packet; which is precisely determined by the allowed atomic transition levels, (Delta-E)= (h-“</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">”).
[To my knowledge, the “</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">” of a moving atom translates into Doppler frequency shift after the quantum transition has taken place, (h-“</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#C00000">nu</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">”).This
is why atomic clocks are operated at extreme low temperature.] A larger number of complete oscillations gives the humans the sense of a longer time interval. Different objects of nature, being built out of oscillators, all have their own oscillation periods.
There is no running time in the inorganic universe. Only living biological organisms have developed the perception of running time and long intervals of times by virtue of their biological memory bank. This is why, I believe that SR is a mis-adventure, away
from proper understanding of physical processes going in nature. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">=================================================</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<span style="color:#003300">I fully agree that "time" is a human concept. When we talk about time we refer to oscillations. The most basic oscillations which control all temporal processes in our physical nature are the oscillations with c - speed of light
- in all elementary particles. And if we assume that this motion with c is related to a fixed reference system, then all relativistic relations regarding "time" are completely determined. This is (for this part) the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity.
There is nothing mystical about it. SR is a formal treatment of just this situation.
<br>
<br>
We humans have a special relation to time as we know that our lifetime is limited. So, I think, we can explains why "time" in our mind plays a bigger role than it plays in physics.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">An example: Most physicists these days say that the speed of light is the same on all moving systems. Can this be true? No, it cannot,
because if we measure the speed of light with a clock running differently from another clock and we get the same result, it can logically not be the same speed. We only measure the same speed which is an illusion. This is true for all physical processes. So
the statement: </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">"The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS"</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">are only true as an illusion.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">If the assumption of the discrete emission line frequencies of atoms and molecules are not the same in the coronas of all stars (besides Doppler
broadenings due to local temperatures), the entire experimental Astrophysics will need complete re-evaluation! I do not think so.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">"The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS" is the most logical assumption as of now. We may need to refine it further as we evolve in our scientific thinking.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">==============================</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">What does it mean: In all stars? Isn't it our general understanding that the physical laws are the same? Normally the saying is that we have the same physical laws in all inertial
systems. That is the Galilean relativity. Was maintained by SR, but in this context it is in my view just an illusion. And another step of Einstein: we have the same physical laws in all accelerated systems. That is Einstein's relativity in GR. And this is
falsified as far as I understand. <br>
<br>
But what about stars? They will normally be in motion with respect to each other. And so I did understand you statement as "same laws in all inertial systems". Maybe I misunderstood it?
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Regarding the CTF I must confess that I have not read and not understood the details. You say that it has dielectric and magnetic tensions
which determine the velocity of EM waves. This is an old problem as magnetism is not an original force but a relativistic side effect of the electrical force. So this way of thinking - like about EM waves - may work in a practical sense, but it does not refer
to fundamental physical reactions. (That is not a specific problem of CTF but as well of electromagnetism.)<br>
What about the </span><b><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">doughnut-like wavicles</span></i></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">? It looks like a complicated shape, at which wavicles are realized. I would like to better understand
what makes them stable with respect to their shape and to their motion. Do you have a model for the stability?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">I have not carried out the mathematical details of CTF to generate wevicles. Most of you are much batter mathematical physicists than me.
So, I leave it to all of you to explore CTF further. CTF does provide the foundation for a one possible UFT (Unified Field Theory), Einstein’s dream.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Doughnut-like wavicles are my imagination to achieve the emergence of quantum-ness and stability of elementary particles. In-phase self-looped
propagation of EM waves allows for both stability (quantization) and localization. Superconductivity of electrons, within only the layered structures of a variety of superconducting crystals, gives me the idea that electrons are more likely flexible planar,
doughnut-like wavicles. Protons most likely have different wavicle structure; but must still possess extreme high frequency self-looped in-phase EM waves like oscillation. Remember, I am just trying to give imaginary structures that would conform to E=m(c-squared);
where (c-squared)=1/ [(epsilon)(mu)]. <b><i>The mass-like inertial properties are quantitatively completely determined by the electromagnetic tension properties held by the CTF.</i></b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">Do you have any quantitative model or better mathematics to deduce the inertial properties?<br>
<br>
Protons are insofar different from electrons as they are no real elementary particles but composed of quarks. And I have a further objection, stated several times: c^2=1/(epsilon*mu) does not reflect the physical situation very well; better is the other order:
mu=1/(c^2*epsilon), as magnetism, described by mu, is a side effect of the electric field caused by the finiteness of c.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">Human invented mathematical logic-driven theories, constructed out of smart set of postulates (logical imaginations) and then validated by
experimental data; are not sufficient to guide us along the definitive correct path to extract the cosmic logics. We need to iteratively modify, re-structure and revalidate the theories and modes of experiments by anchoring ourselves to repeatedly imagining
the invisible physical interaction processes going on in nature. We have been successfully doing the (i) mathematical theorizations and (ii) experimental validations; and yet Physics has been stagnant for almost a century (a bit less!). Let us recognize Einstein’s
advice, “It is the theory that names the parameter we measure”. Imagining the invisible interaction processes in nature provides us with another deeper level of access to cosmic logics (ontological reality).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">I fully agree that the process of understanding the nature is a cyclic one. But I see another problem: sometimes some errors are fed into the logical process of development of theories
which are not noticed for a long time. To avoid those does not need much philosophical considerations but just a critical mind and the willingness not to believe forever opinions, which we have been given by those "giants". One historical example was the proof
of John von Neumann that QM is not compatible with a deterministic world. Von Neumann's proof was very exiting for the founders of QM (like Heisenberg) and it must have been carefully read by all theorists. But it took ca. 30 years until John Bell noticed
that there was a big logical error in this proof. I knew a strict follower of Heisenberg (Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker) who refused to read the paper of Bell as he liked the result of von Neumann. - In the discussion with this group here it turned out that
the initial equations of de Broglie regarding matter waves are logically wrong. Another example of permanent believe. If we succeed to avoid such situations we will have some progress independent from other means.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">So, we must learn to systematically imagine and keep on refining that “picture of interaction processes” that are going on in nature. Theories,
validated by data are no longer sufficient for human intellectual evolution to understand nature!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">Also history has shown than in many cases a good model was simply not seen for a some time. Take the planetary system of Copernicus. Or the periodic system of elements found by Mendelejew.
We must be open to find new models which may possible provide solutions and are on the other hand based on honest physics.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">===========================</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
At the end, the goal in physics was always to have a simple solution which starts from some as well simple assumptions and is able to explain all observations. Do you see this too as a goal?<br>
</span><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1D22F3">I do enjoy simplicity, elegance, symmetry, etc., but I do not put too much “stock” in them, as far as trying to make theories about nature. The entire set of physical processes, from the very beginning
to the finishing behind the birth of a baby, overall quite complex, although separate segments possess different qualifiers. Perfect symmetry would stop interaction processes and freeze the interactions in the evolving universe. The universe is majestically
beautiful because of its perpetual evolution; and the beauties are full of complexities and asymmetries!<b> Chandra.</b></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="color:#003300">I agree that symmetries are not the general solution even though main stream believes this these days. But I doubt that evolution is applicable here because that is a trial and error
process. It works in a way that for a problem a huge number of solutions is offered in nature and one or few are selected. I cannot imagine that this happens in the field of elementary particles or of the universe.<br>
<br>
Sincerely<br>
Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Am 22.11.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: May be you are finally finding the limitation behind using SR as the foundation of Physics.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">No stars or galaxies are stationary. All are moving with respect to each other. So, there are no INERTIAL Frame of Reference anywhere
in this universe. Yet, line-centers of the emitted spectral lines are identical whether the light is collected from a distant star; or from a discharge tube on earth. And even the Doppler line broadening are precisely given by the local ambient temperatures.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SAME IN ALL STARS (not in all inertial frames; which does not exist). So, we need the postulate of the stationary
CTF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">The universe is manifest as various kinds of excitations of the STATIOINARY Complex Tension Field (CTF). EM waves are linear excitations
and hence move perpetually with the same velocity determined the dielectric and magnetic tensions of CTF. Particles are “wavicles”, localized in-phase self-looped propagation of waves of the CTF - doughnut-like (hence resonant and the origin of quantum-ness).
These self-looped waves are like EM waves; but they are not quantized photons; they are quantized “wavicles”. Because finite EM wave packets (no Fourier modes exist) and particles (“wavicles”) are some-what similar propagating excitations (un-looped and self-looped)
of the same CTF; they are eminently inter-convertible when the energy contents allow this through conservation of energy. The root cause behind the observable universal energy conservation is due to the fact that CTF, by itself, cannot dissipate the excitation
energy in its own body; one excitation must be converted into another set of excitations. Forces in this CTF model are due to the various secondary potential gradients generated around the “wavicles” in the body of CTF.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I understand that my CTF model for particles and waves; and the current model of particle theory with the forces as quantized exchange
particles, are incompatible!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Sincerely,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">==================================================</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
General [</span><a href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:windowtext">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 22, 2015 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Richard Gauthier<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Reply of comments from what a model…</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hello Richard,<br>
<br>
I never have persistently tried to develop a 2-particle model. What I have persistently tried was to find a good explanation for relativistic dilation. And there I found a solution which has satisfied me. All the rest including the 2 particles in my model where
logical consequences where I did not see alternatives. If there should be a model which is an alternative in one or the other aspect, I will be happy to see it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Am 22.11.2015 um 00:13 schrieb Richard Gauthier:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hello Albrecht,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> I admire your persistence in trying to save your doomed (in my opinion) 2-particle electron model.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Why 2 particles in the model? I say it again:<br>
<br>
1) to maintain the conservation of momentum in the view of oscillations<br>
2) to have a mechanism for inertia (which has very precise results, otherwise non-existent in present physics)<br>
<br>
I will be happy to see alternatives for both points. Up to now I have not seen any.<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Do you understand how unreasonable and irrational it appears for you to write: "Then I had to determine the field constant S which is normally provided by experiments. But quantum
mechanics is so unprecise regarding the numeric value of the strong force that there is no number available in the data tables. Here I found that I could use the Bohr magneton to determine the constant. (Which turned out to be S = hbar*c, merely a constant).”
? <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">I have once asked one of the leading theorists at DESY for a better quantitative explanation or determination of the strong force. His answer: Sorry, the strong force is not good enough
understood so that I cannot give you better information. <o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">How could the number S that you could not find in “unprecise” tables about the strong force possibly be the same number that can be found precisely from the electron’s Bohr magneton
ehbar/2m and which you claim is S = hbar*c ? This is an unbelievable, desperate stretch of imagination and "grasping at straws", in my opinion.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">When I have realized that my model deduces the Bohr magneton, I have used the measurements available in that context to determine my field constant. (I could also go the other way: I
can use the Planck / Einstein relation E = h * f and the Einstein-relation E = m*c<sup>2</sup> to determine the constant S from the internal frequency in my model. Same result. But I like the other way better. BTW: Do you know any other model which deduces
these relations rather than using them as given?)<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Here is the meaning of “grasping at straws” from <a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws">http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/grasp+at+straws</a> :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<h2 style="box-sizing:
inherit;font-size:1.8rem;line-height:1.8rem;display:inline-block;margin:0.2rem
6px 0px">
<span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">grasp at straws</span><o:p></o:p></h2>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Also,</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr"><b>clutch</b></span><b> at <span class="hvr">straws</span></b>.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">Make</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> a</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">desperate</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">attempt</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">saving</span> <span class="hvr">oneself.</span> <span class="hvr">For</span> <span class="hvr">example,</span> <i>He <span class="hvr">had lost</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">argument,</span> <span class="hvr">but</span> he <span class="hvr">kept</span> <span class="hvr">grasping</span> at <span class="hvr">straws,</span> <span class="hvr">naming</span> <span class="hvr">numerous</span> <span class="hvr">previous</span> <span class="hvr">cases</span> <span class="hvr">that had</span> <span class="hvr">little</span> to do <span class="hvr">with</span> <span class="hvr">this</span> <span class="hvr">one</span></i>.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span><span class="hvr"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040">This</span></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">metaphoric</span> <span class="hvr">expression</span> <span class="hvr">alludes</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">a</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">drowning</span> <span class="hvr">person trying</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">to</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">save</span> <span class="hvr">himself</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">grabbing</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">at</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">flimsy</span> <span class="hvr">reeds.</span> <span class="hvr">First</span> <span class="hvr">recorded</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">in</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">1534,</span> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">term</span> <span class="hvr">was used</span> <span class="hvr">figuratively</span> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">by</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#404040"> <span class="hvr">the</span> <span class="hvr">late</span> <span class="hvr">1600s.</span></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I am not at all opposed to using desperate measures to find or save a hypothesis that is very important to you. Max Planck described his efforts to fit the black body radiation
equation using quantized energies of hypothetical oscillators as an "act of desperation”. So you are of course free to keep desperately trying to save your 2-particle electron hypothesis. I personally think that your many talents in physics could be better
spent in other ways, for example in revising your electron model to make it more consistent with experimental facts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Do you know any other electron model which is so much consistent with experimental facts (e.g. size and mass) as this one (without needing the usual mystifications of quantum mechanics)?<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> By the way, van der Waals forces do not "bind atoms to form a molecule". They are attractive or repulsive forces between molecules or between parts of a molecule. According to
Wikipedia:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">" <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">the </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van
der Waals forces</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or </span><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525">van der Waals' interaction</span></b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">),
named after </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands" title="Netherlands"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Dutch</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist" title="Scientist"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">scientist</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals" title="Johannes Diderik van der Waals"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">Johannes
Diderik van der Waals</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">, is the sum of the attractive or repulsive forces between </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecule" title="Molecule"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">molecules</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> (or
between parts of the same molecule) other than those due to </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covalent_bond" title="Covalent bond"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">covalent bonds</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white">,
or the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_interaction" title="Electrostatic interaction"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">electrostatic interaction</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion" title="Ion"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">ions</span></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> with
one another, with neutral molecules, or with charged molecules.</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-1"><sup><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[1]</span></sup></a><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#252525;background:white"> The
resulting van der Waals forces can be attractive or repulsive.</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force#cite_note-Van_OssAbsolom1980-2"><sup><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">[2]</span></sup></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">Yes, my arrangement of charges of the strong force causes as well a combination of attractive and repulsive forces and is doing the same like in the van der Waals case. That was my reason
to refer to them.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">with best regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>