<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Another answer is that atoms act like resonant antennas and the
Em radiation is absorbed from a larger area</p>
<p>and is seen as a point interaction and falsly assumed to be a
point like particle. The randomness would come from noise in the
detector and Sommerfeld's Loading theory which says the atoms are
preloaded randomly and then pushed over to absorption. Depending
upon the EM wave intensity.<br>
</p>
<p>Eric is trying to prove this with his experiment, I have some
problems with his experiment analysis but the concept looks good
and it gets rid of both wave particle duality and fundamental
randomness. <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/7/2016 9:29 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-378da15d-31b8-442b-8b12-b5de24f9b216-1467908992220@3capp-webde-bs21"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>Q: What can do that?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A: Possible answer: classical particles surfacing
waves. Especially likely when the wave character can be
seen only in the behavour of an ensemble (statistically);
and, all single detections are point-like.</div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
06. Juli 2016 um 07:07 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Eric Reiter" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com"><unquant@yahoo.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] photon definition</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="color: rgb(0,0,0);background-color:
rgb(255,255,255);font-family: times new roman , new
york , times , serif;font-size: 16.0px;">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18463">Hello
Nature of Light... people.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19588">My two
cents. Concerning the photon as seen by Einstein.
I expect you to agree that Bohr can be trusted to
relay Einstein's definition of the photon. This
is from Bohr's book, Atomic Physics and Human
Knowledge, 1958:</span></div>
<blockquote id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18886"
style="margin: 0 0 0 40.0px;border: none;padding:
0.0px;">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_16595">"If a
semi-reflecting mirror is placed in the way of a
photon, leaving two possibilities for its
direction of propagation, the photon may either
be recorded on one, and only one, of two
photographic plates situated at great distances
in the two directions in question, or else we
may, by replacing the plates by mirrors, observe
effects exhibiting an interference between the
two reflected wave-trains."</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18560">So you
see, the model of the photon is not just about
acting like a particle, it is simultaneously about
acting like a wave. Now what can do that? It is
inherently paradoxical and contradictory.
Particles do not act like waves and waves do not
act like particles. The photon is a model that is
not understandable.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_18884">I
attached a scan from the book so you can see for
yourself. I have a terrific library at home. </span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"> </div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19725">For
what it is worth,</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15747"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19723">Eric
Reiter</span></div>
<div class="qtdSeparateBR"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15748"><br>
</div>
<div class="yahoo_quoted"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15755"
style="display: block;">
<blockquote
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15754"
style="border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(16,16,255);margin-left: 5.0px;margin-top:
5.0px;padding-left: 5.0px;">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15753"
style="font-family: times new roman , new york ,
times , serif;font-size: 16.0px;">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15752"
style="font-family: HelveticaNeue , Helvetica
Neue , Helvetica , Arial , Lucida Grande ,
sans-serif;font-size: 16.0px;">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15751">
<hr
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15749"
size="1"><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15750"
face="Arial" size="2"><b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">"af.kracklauer@web.de"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><af.kracklauer@web.de></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b>
Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19837"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19836" style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:14 PM<br>
<b
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19840"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19839" style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</font></div>
<div class="y_msg_container"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15759">
<div id="yiv3533120733">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15763">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15762"
style="font-family: Verdana;font-size:
12.0px;">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15761">Hi:</div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15765"> </div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15767">My
2 cents: It would be good if
participants in discussion of this
nature FIRST focused on the purely
lexicographical issues. Some
disagreements result form disparate
uses of specific terms. "Photon"
is the classic expample. Einstein
meant more or less discreet chunks
of niddle radiation whereas many
QM-mechanicens nowadays mean mode of
the free E&M field (no neddles,
just chunks). Also, the term
"field" has no meaning except in
terms of how it is measured; i.e.,
what is the "test charge". And so
on. Any meaning might be useful,
but without explicite definitions,
readers are left to/required to
imagine what is/are the subject(s).
Just by accident they will very
seldom be the same.</div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_15769"> </div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19631">For
what it's worth, Al K</div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19595">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19594"
style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px
10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px
10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid
rgb(195,217,229);">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19635"
style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag,
05. Juli 2016 um 23:21 Uhr<br
clear="none">
<b
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19634">Von:</b> "Roychoudhuri,
Chandra"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu></a><br
clear="none">
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">"phys@a-giese.de"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><phys@a-giese.de></a>, "Nature
of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br
clear="none">
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General]
double photon cycle, subjective
v objective realities</div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19593">
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19592"
style="background-color:
white;">
<div
class="yiv3533120733yqt4173211933"
id="yiv3533120733yqt74471">
<div
class="yiv3533120733WordSection1"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19591">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19720"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19719"
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">Albrecht
and interested others:
</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">I am
sorry, I do not want
to spend time refuting
“experimental
validations”, one by
one. To, me that is
not a productive
approach. That is a
never ending game
without a possible
final conclusion.
Bohr-Einstein debate
never reached a final
conclusion even though
political decision was
made that Bohr one it;
which I do not
believe! I am trying
to use Einstein’s own
public pronouncements
and arguments well
after he had been
canonized as the most
famous physicists to
develop my model of
thinking that would
allow me to -- ride on
his shoulder to
increase my knowledge
horizon -- (a la
Newton!). Einstein was
the best scientist of
the 20<sup>th</sup>
century because he
never gave up the
natural and
spontaneous evolution
of his own enquiring
mind. Here are some
examples that keeps me
inspired constantly.
[My
papers are available
from: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/" target="_blank">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a>
]</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19590"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19598"><b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"><span>1.<span
style="font:
7.0pt;"> </span></span></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">On
“measurements” and
“unified field
theory”: </span></b><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19597" style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">Einstein
repeated many times
that a theory dictates
and defines the
measurable parameters.
So, we design
experiments to
“fulfill our desires
to find it.” When a
theory has captured a
partial segment of
nature’s ontological
reality; the recorded
results may
corroborate the
theory. That does not
mean that the theory
has definitively
captured the reality.
Since we already know
by following the
evolution of diverse
scientific theories
that none are; and
none of them can be,
the final theories; it
is better to train
some out-of-box
thinkers to keep on
challenging the
foundational
postulates and keep on
iteratively
re-constructing better
theories with greater
and greater capacity
to integrate more and
more phenomena. This
is the true mind set
of scientist. So,
Einstein developed the
concept of “unified
field theory”. Neither
Einstein, nor his
followers, have yet
succeeded in this
dream. My analysis
behind this continuing
failure is that we are
too scared to create
new foundational steps
(postulates) that can
harmoniously integrate
all the theories. If
we maintain that the
foundational
postulates behind the
successes of SR, GR,
QM, QED, QCD, etc.,
are all sacrosanct and
“untouchable”; then we
are never going to
succeed. Because each
set of “successful set
of postulates” helped
define a “successful”
but fairly rigid
mathematical logic. We
cannot keep on
superficially
manipulating the
mathematical logics of
different theories on
the peripheries, out
of religious respect
and/or out fear of
being ostracized; but
we will not succeed in
merging them into one
harmonious theory. For
that we need to start
with a one single
harmonious field, like
Complex Tension Field,
with a new set of
postulates that allows
both the perpetually
propagating linear
waves and localized
“stationary”
oscillations as
particles that can
move under the
influence of secondary
gradients (forces)
generated by the
particle-oscillations
themselves.
Fortunately, our web
participants are
trying to do that. So,
I am happy. </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></b></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"><span>2.<span
style="font:
7.0pt;"> </span></span></span><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">On
“photon”:</span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> After 50
years of brooding,
Einstein was still
unhappy about this own
model of “indivisible
photon”. In spired by
this statement, I have
initiated the
conference series,
“The nature of light:
What are photons?”
starting in 2005, the
centenary of
Einstein’s miraculous
year. And, I am
grateful that all of
you have become
persistent
contributors and have
expanded the
conference into
modeling particles
also. So, this group
is doing truly next
generation physics;
even though I am not
as good as most of you
in theoretical
physics. </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> I am
also now convinced
that all atoms and
molecules radiate
“photons” at the
moment of quantum
transition with the
exact “quantum cupful”
of energy, as
prescribed by QM; but
they evolve into
classical wave packet
propagating out
diffractively that is
modeled by
Huygens-Fresnel’s
diffraction integral.
There are no other
guiding equation for
propagating light
through optical
instruments that is
better than this HF
integral. Radio
antenna (“Hertz
oscillators) directly
keep on radiating EM
waves as long as the
oscillator is kept fed
by electric current
(energy). </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19602"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19601"
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> So,
we modeled “photons”,
after the “h-nu”
quantity of energy is
released, as
dominantly-exponential
wave packet that
propagates out
following the HF
integral. This model
also corroborates
Lorentzian natural
line width of atomic
sources as a physical
consequence of the
exponential pulse.
This also required me
to develop a causal
formulation of
spectrometry by
propagating a finite
pulse envelope through
spectrometers. These
are all in my book,
“Causal Physics” (CRC,
2014). I am attaching
relevant older (2006)
paper on the shape of
an evolved “photon”.
[If you google for my
book, you might find a
couple of web sites
that allow you to down
load the book free.]</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"><span>3.<span
style="font:
7.0pt;"> </span></span></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">On
Ether: </span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">While the
entire world had
bought “ether does not
exist”, Einstein gave
talks and written
comments, that ether
as form of cosmic
field, must at the
foundation of the of
the universe.
Unfortunately,
Einstein never
attempted to
re-construct the
founding postulates of
the QM that could be
allowed by the novel
field (modified ether)
and model for
particles as
manifestation of the
same field which would
have completely
removed the fallacy of
staying stuck with the
Michelson-Morley
experiments.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"> </div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"><span>4.<span
style="font:
7.0pt;"> </span></span></span></b><b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">Time: </span></b><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">As far as
I remember reading
here and there, it was
Minkowski who
introduced the concept
of time as the “real”
fourth dimension of
nature. The concept of
dimension in
mathematics and in the
physical nature are
very different. We
already know that from
the five to thirteen
dimensional string
theories going nowhere
after some 30/40 years
of endeavor by some
the best and the
brightest of physics;
What waste of human
talent!</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19607"><b><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></b><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19606" style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">I
consider only those
parameters in a theory
as physically
meaningful and can be
related to nature’s
functional behavior
which can be related
to the physical
processes that
facilitates the
relevant phenomena to
emerge as some
measurable data. No
physical entity
display the capability
of keeping track of
the running time, “t”.
Simply on this
argument, I believe
that running time “t”
cannot be a physical
dimension of nature.
Our perception of time
and its inclusion in
our theories arise
because every
interaction process
has a finite reaction
time, and a “rate of
change” ,
[d(parameter)/dt]
during the interaction
process. Also, note
that the parameter
“frequency” is
ubiquitous in nature.
Manifest nature is
built out of diverse
oscillators with their
characteristic
frequencies, exp(iwt).
The biggest mistake of
our QM founders was
that they erroneously
assumed exp(iwt)
represents a “plane
wave”. Even for light
waves, a “plane wave”
does not exist in this
universe. Waves are
always diffractively
diverging; even after
we focus them. Yes, at
the focal plane, the
focused wave does
display uniform phase
across its focused
spot. This is the only
transient “plane wave”
that exist in nature!
There is no
wave-particle duality.
But, thousands of
papers are still being
published every month
on interference of
“single indivisible
photon”, proving
wave-particle duality.
It is futile and
meaningless to find
mistakes either in
their experiments, or
in their
interpretations.
Frozen belief system
makes us design
experiments and
extract theory
validating data to
realize from the
function of beam
combiner in any
two-beam
interferometer that
two separate signals
from the opposite
sides of the beam
combiner must be
present to “activate”
the mathematical
superposition relation
we all use [I am
attaching a short
segment out of my
book.] I am sorry to
repeat, see my book;
or, go to the web to
down load the relevant
papers : <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/" target="_blank">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a></span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19611"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19610"
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">To
repeat, I am of the
strong opinion that if
we keep believing that
the foundational
postulates of the
“working and validated
theories” are
untouchables; then
physics will not
progress any further
to discover the
ontological realities.
We will keep telling
nature, as we are
doing now, how she
ought to behave based
on human invented
mathematical theories
and human designed
“successful”
experiments to
validate those “God’s
Equations”. These are,
of course, the prime
tools to advance our
scientific
understanding, period.
But, we are forgetting
the third leg of the
“stool of
investigation”. <b><i>It
is to keep on
iterating the
foundational
postulates of the
working theories
to find higher and
higher levels of
conceptual
continuity among
more and more
diverse natural
phenomena (a
unified field
theory).</i></b></span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19613"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19612"
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">
Nature has given us
the un-ending
challenge so our brain
can keep on evolving
forever! It is high
time for us to
re-introduce this
original intention of
nature in the name of
evolution process
congruent thinking! </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19615"><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">This is
not philosophy. We
have evolved into a
thinking species. So,
we must learn to
master and manage our
personal thinking
logics. Logically
self-consistent set of
mathematical symbols
cannot do the thinking
for us. They are the
product of our
“limited” thinking. It
is high time for us to
invigorate our
progress in the name
of evolution process
congruent thinking!</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;color:
windowtext;">Chandra.
</span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht
Giese<br
clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b>
Tuesday, July 05,
2016 11:00 AM<br
clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature
of Light and
Particles -
General Discussion
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [General]
double photon
cycle, subjective
v objective
realities</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">Chandra,</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">you say: "SR
is not even Physics".
Don't understand why.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">If we keep a
little distance to the
more mystical
foundations of
Einstein
("space-time"), then
relativity is easy and
simple. SR comprises
the following facts:</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">1.)
Oscillations slow down
at motion<br
clear="none">
2.) Fields contract at
motion</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">Fact 1.) can
easily be measured and
easily be understood
with regard to its
cause.<br clear="none">
Fact 2.) can also
easily be understood
with regard to its
cause</span><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Times , serif;">; the
experimental proof is
indirect but existent.</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">All the rest
is quite simple logic
(like the constancy of
the measured "c").</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">That's all,
and what is your
specific reason to
deny it?</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">Albrecht</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;">Am
05.07.2016 um 02:27
schrieb
Roychoudhuri,
Chandra:</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19623"
style="margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Many
thanks, Grahame, for
the excellent
complement on the
philosophy of
thinking, which I
have been developing
for over several
decades. I am now in
the process of
applying that mode
of thinking
(Evolution Process
Congruent Thinking)
to political
economy and the
politics of
money-driven elected
governments, the
model of the West,
being imposed on the
rest of the world.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;">I will read
carefully your
thinking on
Relativity (SR). I
think we are on the
same page. SR is not
even Physics. In
contrast, QM has a
lot of valuable
physics (captured
some realities) that
will give us
guidance to evolve
forward towards a
next higher level
theory.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(31,73,125);"> </span></div>
<div>
<div style="border:
none;border-top:
solid
rgb(225,225,225)
1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt
0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"> General [</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href=""><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;">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dr
Grahame
Blackwell<br
clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b>
Monday, July 04,
2016 7:02 PM<br
clear="none">
<b>To:</b>
Nature of Light
and Particles -
General
Discussion </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href=""><span style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family:
Calibri ,
sans-serif;"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></span></a><br
clear="none">
<span
style="font-size:
11.0pt;font-family: Calibri , sans-serif;"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General]
double photon
cycle,
subjective v
objective
realities</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
<div
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19622">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Hi Richard, Chip,
Chandra (et al),</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">I have attached at
Richard’s request
a copy of the
first 10 pages of
my book (after
index etc); this
comprises the
first section of
my book, the
Introduction. I
believe you’ll see
from this my
philosophy and my
objectives in
undertaking my own
line of scientific
research. This is
not to identify or
define a suitable
model for a
photon-formed
electron – though
that is to a
limited extent an
inevitable
by-product of my
investigations –
but rather to
resolve what I
have come to see,
over some years,
as
inconsistencies,
incompleteness or
scope for further
understanding in
the
generally-accepted
model of physical
reality. [Note
that, whilst
holding firmly to
scientific
principles, this
book is intended
to be
comprehensible for
the most part by
non-specialists;
this introduction
should be read
with that in
mind.]</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Chandra, I was most
impressed (I might
even say
‘excited’) by your
paper presented
last year at the
SPIE conference,
which you have
just circulated (I
found myself
saying “yes!” out
loud several times
whilst reading
it). I’d like to
think that the
contents of my
book are in the
spirit of the
outward-looking
‘Perpetual Scout’
scientific
approach that you
advocate*; I have
for some time been
concerned by the
attitude of
science that
appears to take
the line: “We’ve
got it all correct
to date, now we
just need to fill
in the fine
detail” (whilst
happily accepting
the unexplained
‘fact’ of Special
Relativity and the
unexplained
apparent
serendipity of
Quantum
Mechanics). I’m
also very enthused
by your view that
we need to be
thinking NOW about
how we can ensure
that we’re still
around beyond our
parent star’s main
sequence;
alignment with
cosmic evolution,
rather than trying
to force our will
on it, seems to be
a patently obvious
strategy.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">[* The concept of
reverse
engineering both
physical reality
and the
evolutionary
process is one
that I believe has
been central to my
research.]</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Richard, no matter
how much I try I
can't find any
common ground
between our
respective
understandings of
the terms
‘subjective’ and
‘objective’ as
applied to
material reality.
For me the term
‘subjective’ is
crystal clear in
its meaning: it
relates to a
situation, event
or scenario as
experienced by an
individual or
group (possibly a
very large group)
of individuals –
including
‘experience by
proxy’ through
instrumentation.
In this situation
the sensors of
this/those
individual(s) –
including possibly
electromechanical
sensors – mediate
that experience
and thereby
provide input to
(i.e. variation
of) that
experience over
and above the
actuality of the
(objective) event
or scenario being
experienced.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19621"><span
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1467699239880_19620"
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">By contrast the
term ‘objective’
refers to the
object – the
situation, event
or scenario
itself. With
regard to that
object it matters
not one iota what
people think –
even a great
number of highly
intelligent people
– it will not
re-shape itself to
conform to their
thoughts. For
example, everyone
in the world could
think that the
earth was flat, it
would make
absolutely no
difference to the
shape of our
planet – but it <b>would</b>
make a great deal
of difference with
respect to their
effectiveness in
navigating from
one place to
another!</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">If a mathematician
proposed that one
plus one was equal
to two, would you
dismiss that as
just a personal
philosophy of
mathematics? I’m
not in any way
suggesting that my
view of reality is
the right one, or
the only possible
one – but I <b>am</b>
absolutely adamant
that if we regard
subjective
impressions as
convertible to
objective truth
just by sheer
weight of numbers
then the future of
science is doomed.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">That’s a major
reason why I don’t
participate in
discussing the
pros and cons of
various models of
the electron, as
you say you’d wish
me to – it’s not
actually possible
for me to separate
‘my philosophy’,
as you call it,
from my perception
of what
constitutes a
better or less
good model.
You’ve proposed
(below) that I
“point out any
defects or
limitations in
different models”
– surely that’s
what I’ve tried to
do, totally
consistently, in a
logical way that
hopefully doesn’t
give offence? But
it seems that’s
what you object
to, since you
regard my approach
as simply my
[personal]
philosophy of
science and
therefore
(presumably) not
acceptable as a
valid contribution
to this
discussion.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">I’ll continue to
participate in
this debate, in
the only way that
makes sense to me
(and hopefully
makes some sense
to some others).
If that doesn’t
work for you,
fine, give it a
miss – but I’m
afraid I can’t set
aside what I see
as facts just to
join in a
conversation on
any model that,
for what seem to
me to be very good
reasons, I can’t
believe in.</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;"> </span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Best regards,</span></div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;color: navy;">Grahame</span></div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:
none;border-left:
solid navy
1.5pt;padding: 0.0in
0.0in 0.0in
4.0pt;margin-left:
3.75pt;margin-top:
5.0pt;margin-right:
0.0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;">
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">-----
Original Message
----- </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
style="background:
rgb(228,228,228);"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href=""
title="richgauthier@gmail.com"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">Richard
Gauthier</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">To:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href=""
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">Nature of
Light and
Particles -
General
Discussion</span></a><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> </span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">Sent:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> Sunday, July
03, 2016 3:01 PM</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;">Subject:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial , sans-serif;"> Re:
[General] double
photon cycle,
subjective v
objective
realities</span></div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal">Hello
Grahame,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal">
You seem unwilling
to present the
first few pages of
your book to help
give us more
background and
context to your
particle model and
approach. So I
think I’ll pass
for now on
commenting on your
distinction
between subjective
and objective
realities, which
is more of a
statement of your
philosophy of
science, and how
to know what is
“real” in physics.
Physicists try to
interpret,
understand and
predict aspects of
the physical
world, based on
ideas, concepts,
mathematics,
models and
objective physical
measurements and
observations. I
think we are all
engaged in this in
one way or
another, despite
any differences in
our philosophies
about the nature
of reality.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal">
I think your model
of the electron
and other
particles should
be separable from
your particular
philosophy of
science, so that
others who may not
share your
philosophy of
science, as well
as those who do,
may be able to
decide if your
model is useful or
better than other
physical models,
for “doing
physics”. One way
is to look at the
models themselves
quantitatively and
to compare and
contrast one model
with other models
to see how well
these models (all
relating to
photons and
particles in our
discussion group)
stand up to
critical scrutiny
as well as to
experimental
support. I think
that’s partly what
this discussion
group is about. I
hope you are
willing to join in
this effort, to
point out any
defects or
limitations in
different models,
to encourage
improvement of
weaker models, and
to acknowledge any
strengths in these
or other models,
since none of them
is perfect.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal">
Richard</div>
</div>
<div>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="">phys@a-giese.de</a></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
<pre></a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:
12.0pt;"> </div>
<table
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormalTable"
style="border:
none;border-top: solid
rgb(211,212,222) 1.0pt;"
border="1"
cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="1"
rowspan="1"
style="width:
41.25pt;border:
none;padding:
13.5pt 0.75pt
0.75pt 0.75pt;"
width="83">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:
0.0in;text-decoration:
none;"><img
alt="Image
removed by
sender."
id="yiv3533120733Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part9.991035C7.697119B7@nascentinc.com" height="29" border="0"
width="46"></span></a></div>
</td>
<td colspan="1"
rowspan="1"
style="width:
352.5pt;border:
none;padding:
12.75pt 0.75pt
0.75pt 0.75pt;"
width="705">
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"
style="line-height: 13.5pt;"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(65,66,78);">Virenfrei. </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family: Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(68,83,234);">www.avast.com</span></a><span style="font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:
Arial ,
sans-serif;color:
rgb(65,66,78);"> </span></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div
class="yiv3533120733MsoNormal"><span
style="color:
windowtext;"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles
General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here
to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="yqt4173211933" id="yqt90728">_______________________________________________<br
clear="none">
If you no longer wish to receive
communication from the Nature of Light and
Particles General Discussion List at <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="unquant@yahoo.com"
target="_parent">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br
clear="none">
<a href="<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
clear="none">
Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none">
</a></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________ If you
no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>