<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="-1">Chandra and interested others,<br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">so
you do not want to spend time refuting “experimental
validations”</span>. But what is physics without experiments?</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">If we look into the history of scientific
development, there have been great thinkers, highly intelligent
and careful persons, who tried to find out facts about our world
by "pure thinking". By all my historical knowledge, no results
from these persons have survived or are still in discussion. One
of the outstanding persons was Rene Descartes. His concept was:</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">1.) "I only use information and knowledge with is
so much for sure that not real thinking person can deny it"<br>
2.) "When I further develop this knowledge by my thinking, I am
acting so carefully that I can be sure that I do not make any
mistake."</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">Good ideas, but nothing of his results are still
in consideration. There is a lot of others thinkers with similar
results. My personal view is: If a person of normal intelligence
practices "pure thinking", 90 % of his results will be wrong. If
a genius like Einstein or de Broglie or Planck practise pure
thinking, only 70% of their results may be wrong. Better results
are not possible for our human brains; we have to accept that.
And what is the filter of get the good results? The filter are
observations and experiments. We do not have anything better.
That is my view and I believe that this can be easily proven by
our scientific history. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">Your list of cases and considerations how easily
a measurement can be designed to follow a theory, which is
expected to be correct, is very good and very valid. But your
list of existing theories shows that the discussion of theories
is a never ending story with no </font><font size="-1">end </font><font
size="-1">visible. We will not come to an end and not even get
to a step of progress if we restrict ourselves to thinking and
ignore experiments. Again: the experiments are the filter (and
the only one, I think) to sort out theories which are of no
help. Irrespective which type of experiment you find useful or
not, any experimental result which is in conflict with a
specific theory falsifies that theory. <br>
</font></p>
<p>You write: "<span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> (We
have to)...</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">keep on iteratively
</span> re-constructing better theories with greater and greater
capacity to integrate more and more phenomena". Yes, I agree.
But what are the phenomena? These phenomena are the results of
observations and experiments. <br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">One specific
point in your text: "</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">I believe that running
time “t” cannot be a physical dimension of nature". I fully
agree. This running time is only a way by which humans try to
order the precesses in nature so that their brains can handle
them. This helps us even though it is no physics. - But it will
help us physicists on a longer term if we understand this
context and sort out those notions which are indeed not real
physics. That was my example for SR: If we restrict the
statements of relativity to the facts of "oscillations" and
"fields" then we have thrown off a lot of ballast. And I think
that we can do a lot in this sense to have progress in a quite
easy way. - This is one thing we can do, of course not the only
one.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><br>
</span></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><font size="-1">Am 05.07.2016 um 23:21
schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</font><br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB29954E08782C8EA223A5705593390@BN6PR05MB2995.namprd05.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 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;}
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
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
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.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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:78527818;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2040553778 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht and
interested others: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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/">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a>
]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">On
“measurements” and “unified field theory”: </span></b><span
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. <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><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). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
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.]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">3.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><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.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">4.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span></b><!--[endif]--><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!<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span></b><span
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/">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra. <o:p> </o:p></span></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 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>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:00 AM<br>
<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>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">you say: "SR is not even
Physics". Don't understand why.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">1.) Oscillations slow down at
motion<br>
2.) Fields contract at motion</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Fact 1.) can easily be
measured and easily be understood with regard to its cause.
<br>
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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">All the rest is quite simple
logic (like the constancy of the measured "c").</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">That's all, and what is your
specific reason to deny it?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Am
05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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"><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="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">]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
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"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] double photon cycle,
subjective v objective realities</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">[* The concept of reverse engineering both
physical reality and the evolutionary process is one
that I believe has been central to my research.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy"
lang="EN-GB">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid navy
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">-----
Original Message ----- </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:#E4E4E4"><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="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"
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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Grahame,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> Richard<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></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="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></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">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt" border="1"
cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="83">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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:0in;text-decoration:none"><img
id="Picture_x0020_1"
src="cid:part11.BA5C1680.0B2D1396@a-giese.de"
alt="Image removed by sender." height="29"
border="0" width="46"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt .75pt
.75pt .75pt" width="705">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">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:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>