<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<base href="x-msg://130/"><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.apple-converted-space
{mso-style-name:apple-converted-space;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Grahame and all other colleagues:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">While I am very pleased to read Grahame’s endorsement of my personal views; this forum is meant for nurturing all self-consistent views that can collectively liberate our physics thinking out of the current
moribund state. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> My CTF (Complex Tension Field) postulate presents a possible map to develop a self-consistent path towards a unified field theory, an original conceptual initiative of Einstein. His approach got stunted,
within my limited understanding, because he tried to force-fit different existing theories while
<b><i>preserving their mutually contradictory foundational postulates</i></b>. <b>
<i>He did not try to re-structure the foundational postulates of all the working theories into a new coherent set of postulates</i></b>; which is my recommendation. We need to try out CTF-like concept and a necessary set of postulates that allows<b><i> everything
as emergent property of the same foundational field</i></b>; which also preserves all major observations. We do not need to re-produce all the existing theories. We need to validate all the physical observations; while avoiding the necessity of validating
parameters do not represent primary physical parameters of real objects. We need to note Einstein’s advice. If our minds become slaves of a theory; it will dictate us how to construct an experiment so we can measure the
<b><i>desired parameter</i></b>. We have two situations in physics. A set of observables guides us to invent a set of logically self-consistent postulates and then construct logical theory that quantitatively re-validates observed data; which originally guided
the formulation of the postulates. Newton’s gravity is the beautiful example. Tycho Brahe and Kepler’s observations and Kepler’s empirical laws of planetary motion were the guide for Newton.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> In contrast, Einstein’s Relativity approached to solve the “non-existence of ether”. This is fundamentally flawed approach because the experimentally valid null M-M experiment
<b><i>did not unequivocally imply light travels through</i></b> <b>Empty Space</b>. For “anything” to move perpetually through the vast distance,
<b><i>the space</i></b> must physically facilitate the process. So, it is a physically real “something”. And, this was already built into Maxwell’s wave equation. Einstein ignored that. Then, to bring in mathematical logical self-consistency in his theory<b><i>,
he introduced another non-causal, non-physical concept – variation of the running time, “t”.</i></b> Irrespective of the value of running “t” for our working theories (and organizing human social activities), it is not a measurable physical parameter of anything
in this universe. We cannot directly measure or manipulate this running time “t”. However, in real practical world, there are oscillators with characteristics frequencies everywhere in this universe. And, our engineers have learned to measure these frequencies
very well. Then, we invert this <b><i>primary physical parameter</i></b>, frequency, to create a
<b><i>time interval</i></b>. We do know how to physically alter the natural characteristics frequencies of different physical oscillators. This allows us to alter the corresponding derived
<b><i>secondary parameter</i></b>, the <b><i>time interval</i></b>. However, our experimental capability of achieving physical “contraction “ or “dilation” of the frequency of an oscillatory object does not imply we are<b><i> contracting or dilating universal
running time</i></b>. In my view point, this is one of the most serious mis-direction of physics in the entire history of modern human evolution.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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 [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr Grahame Blackwell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 04, 2017 6:28 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.<o:p></o:p></span></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">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Thank you for this very lucid representation of the facts, which mirrors pretty precisely my own view of the matter.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">I have said for some time that, at a fundamental level, NOTHING is actually physically moving. At a higher conceptual level it's convenient to talk (and think) of
'waves moving through space', as a model of systematic variations in field effects. At a higher level still, some of those variations may be modelled as 'localised looped waves' aka 'particles'. Up another level and we have chemistry, another level again
and we have biology. So we build our experience of reality in layers, each of those layers being seen as actual/factual (whatever 'fact' means).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">[If we were to burrow down, rather than up, we would find ourselves in levels where the concepts of 'time' and 'space' have no meaning - just as 'up' and 'down' have
no meaning in deep space. I personally believe we ultimately have to tackle those deeper levels if we are to overcome certain limitations in our understanding that are blocking our way at present...]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Hopefully, then, we can move on from these cyclical discussions/arguments about mass (all kinds), charge, momentum - recognising that these are all simply artefacts
of the 'looped-wave' structure of 'matter'. Indeed, given the universal inertial reference frame that you speak of and that I've been speaking of for nearly 20 years (laying to rest the myth of objective relativity), the realities of 'gravitation' and 'curvature
of spacetime' can be seen likewise as artefacts of the spatially extended (alocal) manifestation of those systematic variations in the underlying substrate of the cosmos (which you refer to as the CTF). We could even, hopefully, recognise that the 'force
carrier' particles (gauge bosons) are in fact just conceptual stand-ins for what's really going on.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Simple recognition of these self-evident facts, if effectively communicated, could move our species forward to a significant degree.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Best regards,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:navy">Grahame</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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 -----
<o:p></o:p></span></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">
<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" title="chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">
Roychoudhuri, Chandra</a> <o:p></o:p></span></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">
<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">
'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'</a> <o:p></o:p></span></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"> Wednesday, January 04, 2017 12:21 AM<o:p></o:p></span></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] Our forum in the absence of our SPIE conference.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chip, Richard: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Let us recall the original experiment of electron-positron (pair production) after a high energy gamma ray is stopped by the layers of Pb-nuclei (Lead plates).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> A <b><i>charge-less</i></b> and
<b><i>material-less</i></b> entity (gamma) giving birth to two oppositely <b><i>charged</i></b> particle along with
<b><i>material</i></b>-like behavior. So, our imagination can remain widely open as to what brings out this “charge” and “mass” like properties out of a gamma ray.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> My postulate is that these properties are derivatives of the complex “self-looped” dynamic movement of the stationary space (Complex Tension Field, or CTF). Let us also remember that these properties
(charge, mass, etc.) become manifest as instrumental transformations in our experiments and, further, they represent interpretations by our limited human knowledge (albeit steadily increasing). They exist in our mind (“knowledge”) as our interpretations of
diverse observations. And these interpretations get enhanced with more experiments and more thinking; while we keep on unifying more and more phenomena.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Locality and stability of the particles (electrons and protons) require that the parent oscillations be self-looped. But,
<b><i>the CTF itself is not moving</i></b>! It is always stationary. The entire cosmic space, as CTF, represents the universal
<b><i>inertial reference frame</i></b>. It is the perturbation induced <b><i>potential gradient of different kinds</i></b>, generated in CTF, that are executing the undulations; whether it is the simple propagating EM waves of any frequency; or it is the localized
self-looped oscillation for particles. The entire manifest (observable) universe constitutes these diverse
<b><i>excited states</i></b> of the stationary CTF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> In this model, the secondary potential gradients generated in the CTF always has the same rate of spatial change given by “c-squared” = “Epsilon/Mu”; Epsilon and Mu are two of the various intrinsic properties
of the CTF. EM waves are open-ended undulating gradients and hence propagates perpetually until absorbed through some physical interaction process. Remember, the CTF itself is not moving, only the undulations. That is the fundamental characteristics of our
wave equation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> In this model, particles are also generated out of very similar undulating potential gradients of the CTF; but in the high-energy generation process; they become self-looped and hence localized (free
particles are not plane waves!). If phase matched (resonant), then they are stable; which is the origin of energy quantization out of “classical” harmonic oscillation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> The key point here is that the “c”, representing the spatial rate of change of the right kind of potential gradient of CTF, is not a displacement velocity of CTF. Nothing is physically moving. CTF is
stationary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> So, when a particle is modeled as a self-looped oscillation (“rate of change”) of the potential
<b><i>gradients of field</i></b>, CTF, changing at the rate of “c”; it does not represent the velocity of any “material” or a “substance”. Further, the translation of the entire particle is limited to “c”. Because,
<b><i>any attempts to push it to any higher velocity, the particles will break up into high energy gamma rays traveling as EM waves with the velocity “c”. </i></b>Results of LHC point to this mode of thinking.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> I hope, this gives a bit more coherent picture in support of my postulate that CTF could represent the foundation for another new attempt to a unified field theory;
<b><i>where everything is an emergent property of the same CTF</i></b>. For particles, these various complex gradients give rise to the observed properties that we measure during interactions between them. “Mutual forces” become manifest when different kinds
of potential gradients experience each other within each other’s vicinity and attempt to preserve their integrity (self-lopped oscillations). We do not need separate exchange particles for the particles to experience different forces. The null result of MM
experiment then becomes a positive support for the CTF- postulate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Chandra.</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><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"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>