<div dir="ltr"><div>Wolfgang,</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for your letter. I am about to leave on a 10 day trip to Ireland to visit relatives. Therefore I probably will not get in much physics done during this time. I have attached a short summary of one aspect of my work. I just sent it out to the discussion group, but I am also sending it to you directly. My model keeps generating new equations which are easy to prove correct. I take this as proof that I am on the right track. Please look this over and give me your comments. These equations come from my spacetime-based model. I am working from the bottom up. This means that I start with the quantum mechanical properties of spacetime and then "invent" a model of the universe based on these properties. It is amazing that I generate answers to problems that I was not considering. For example, gravity comes easily out of this approach. Again this gives me a lot of confidence.</div><div><br></div><div>I will be back on May 8, so perhaps I might attempt to catch your discussion of it is available without paying the fees for the entire conference. Please send me the time and location if it is possible to only attend the discussion group.</div><div><br></div><div>John Macken</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Wolfgang Baer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">wolf@nascentinc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
John;<br>
I've attached my paper and CC's Eric so he can send his if he
wishes.<br>
<br>
I agree we are all looking at the limitations of QM formulations in
the every day macroscopic world.<br>
<br>
My approach however is to first off look at the observer and see how
physical formulations depend upon the concepts and limitations
imposed by the observer. Most people, and I'm not necessarily
including you, stick to the old independent reality concept and try
to build more and more complicated models in that independent
objective reality. If we start off by realizing that classical
physics is the physics of the system that knows, builds theories ,
and displays interpretations of interactions and QM should be the
physics of that knowledge and display mechanism which naturally
limits what it can display and theorize as the cause of its
sensations to the construction rules of its own mechanism then we
would get a handle on the "rose colored glasses syndrome" and
perhaps make progress.<br>
<br>
ERic and I will be participating in a discussion group at the FOM
III conference in Berkeley May 20 on the topic of "Obserer-Inclusive
Physics" along with Henry Stapp and others. <br>
<br>
best,<br>
Wolf<br>
<pre cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax <a href="tel:831-659-3120" target="_blank" value="+18316593120">831-659-3120</a>/0432
E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" target="_blank">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div>On 4/25/2016 10:53 AM, Hodge John
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
</div>
<div>Wolf:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please send links
to your papers. We and Reiter seem to have
similar goals - replace QM. Therefore, the Theory of
Everything is a basic
Newtonian/ Gr model (matter warps space, space directs matter)
which is my
STOE. <br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think you are
asking a question about my line of thinking.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have suggested
the principle that the universe is fractal
(self similar) on all scales. That is, the quantum world
should obey the same
equations as our everyday world. The scale difference then
requires new models
to show the similarity. The QM model and its bizarre models
such as
wave-particle duality and entanglement need to be re-addressed
in everyday
terms. That is what the STOE attempts. </div>
<div>I developed the
STOE model (in many, sometimes long papers)
to explain Young’s Experiment by a calculating model of
photons - Now achieved
(I hope). Now experiments are necessary.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I think the Hodge
Experiment can distinguish between wave
and particle. The STOE is needed now because it presents a
model. The next need
is to do the experiment with a known (read in our everyday
size world) wave
such as water and a known particle such as the walking drop of
the Bush
reference. If these observation are different, the separation
of the experiment
from the STOE would be achieved (given the self similar
principle). I’m
thinking of building a water tank. But that is looking
problematic for me. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, electron
diffraction does present some issues. However,
the following may have a way to produce the desired pattern as
the first mask.
It seems a second such arrangement may be able to make the
second mask with a
real slit to form the selection followed by another
interferometer to produce
the resultant pattern. I haven’t looked into it thoroughly
because I don’t have
the equipment. </div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div style="margin-left:.5in">A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda,
T. Kawasaki and H. Ezawa, "Demonstration of Single-Electron
Buildup of an
Interference Pattern,"Amer. J. Phys. 57 (1989) pp.117-120.</div>
<div>Do you think such
a thing can be done? I think the usual
diffraction of electrons through crystals is probably
impractical.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The STOE
postulates there are just 2 constituents (after
Democritus) and their interaction in our universe - particles
(hods) and plenum
- names given because their properties dictate their
interaction. Hods warp
plenum (like “space” GR got something there) and plenum
directs hods trajectory
(GR and Bohm).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>EM radiation
results from electron moving on a metal rod
(antenna). What is radiated - particles that then hit the
detectors or plenum
waves that then cause electrons in the detector to move?
Whatever charge is
must be indicated by the EM radiation. For example, if charge
is a
characteristic of particles - what characteristic - their
shape, any
oscillations. If charge is a plenum characteristic (your
resonate antenna
effect. The STOE suggests ``entanglement’’ is a
resonate-plenum-effect on
matter.), what character - wavelength, combination of
frequencies? How does
this make electron neg. and positron +?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Why need a photon? Because the goal is to
refute
QM. Many papers (years) ago - the need was to form a basic
model to address QM
in everyday terms - wave or particle. ``</span><span>A single model of light has remained a
mystery. Black body
radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the Compton effect
observations reject
the wave-in-space model of light. The reflection,
diffraction, interference,
polarization, and spectrographic observations reject the
traditional particle
model of light.’’ To refute QM, either (1) a wave model of
the Black body
radiation, the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect
needed to be
developed or (2) a particle model of reflection,
diffraction, interference,
polarization, or spectrographic effects needed to be
developed. I thought along
both lines for a time. I thought I saw a way forward with
the particle in
Young’s Experiment. It seems to be working. </span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>Your
question on the-resonate-effect-on-an-absorber is a possible
alternate if the
EM has to be a wave. </span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>If a photon
model is not acceptable or you want resonate effects of
waves, then a model of
Black body radiation, the photoelectric effect should be
developed. Actually,
given the hod/plenum concept, this doesn’t seem impossible.
A resonate effect
could look like a particle result in an experiment (is that
your point). But
the photon is easier, or so I thought. </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>The ``wave model
of light’’ suggests a wave going through
the slit that then forms the diffraction pattern. Very
straight forward. But
suppose the goal is to have a (single) particle going through
the slit. What
directs it? Young’s Experiment and the walking drop suggest an
edge effect. If
the particle is between the mask and screen, what directs it?</div>
<div>In the walking
drop experiment (BTW this is the experiment
that suggested I try for a particle model for the wave
observation) there is no
wave coming through the slit to direct the drop and the drop
does change
direction after the slit. Because plenum (gravitational) waves
direct matter
(GR), very specific plenum waves are required to direct the
photons after the
slit. The only source for wave source is the moving photon.
Hence, the need to
reflect (which also gives us the QM effect of
observer/wires/equipment on the
experiment - one less peculiarity to worry about which implies
a simplification
to the overall model). </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span>Part of the claim is that the STOE
describes
Young’s Experiment with a particle model, then shows a
difference with the wave
model (side of illumination). ``</span><span>The math of the full slit, diffraction
experiment for STOE
particles with plenum inertia can be mathematically
transformed into the
Fraunhofer wave model with HF assumptions \citep[Section
4]{hodg15a}.’’ ``The
STOE model of particles and the wave model of a continuous
medium yield indistinguishable
results for the screen image in the traditional diffraction
experiment.’’
However, the claim needs to be supported with further
experiment. The water
experiment should do this (1) show Fraunhofer diffraction on
second mask
position, (2) show Fraunhofer diffraction on screen when
second mask is
centered, (3) move second mask so slit has varying
illumination, and (4) see
most energy on the same side. </span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span>The rational
for doing the Experiment was that the STOE model suggested a
difference between
a wave model and the STOE model (Fig. 1 in the first paper
you commented) while
showing indistinguishable results for Young’s Experiment. </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Did this (long)
message answer your last query?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hodge</div>
<div> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" target="_blank">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu">jmacken@stmarys-ca.edu</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jmacken%40stmarys-ca.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/jmacken%40stmarys-ca.edu?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>