<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1">Chandra,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">my intention this time was to avoid a too philosophical
discussion, interesting as it may be, and to avoid the risk to
extend it towards infinity. So, this time I only intended to
discuss a specific point.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Therefore
the main point of my mail: How do you explain the process going
on in my experiment without assuming the photon as a particle?
(Details again below.)</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Albrecht</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
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.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.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Albrecht: <o:p>
</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Thanks for your
critical questions. I will try to answer to the extent I am
capable of. They are within your email text below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> However, I am of
the general opinion that Physics has advanced enough to give
us the confidence that generally speaking, we have been
heading in the right direction – the laws of natural
evolution are universally causal in action and are
independent of the existence or non-existence of any
particular species, including human species.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> History has also
demonstrated (Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific revolutions)
that all working theories eventually yield to newer theories
based upon constructing better fundamental postulates using
better and broad-based precision data. So, this century is
destined to enhance all the foundational postulates behind
most working theories and integrate them into a better
theory with much less “hotchpotch” postulates like “wave
particle-duality”, “entanglement”, “action at a distance”,
etc., etc. Our community should agree and stop the
time-wasting philosophical debates like, “Whether the moon
EXISTS when I am not looking for it!” Would you waste your
time writing a counter poem, if I write, “The moon is a
dusty ball of Swiss cheese”? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">In summary,
leveraging the evolutionary power of self-introspection,
human observers will have to learn to CONSCIOUSLY direct
further evolution of their own mind out of its current
trap of biologically evolved neural logics towards pure
logic of dispassionate observers who do not influence
the outcome of experimental observations!</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> Let us not waste
any more of our valuable time reading and re-reading the
inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We are not smarter than
them; but we have a lot more observational data to structure
our logical thinking than they had access to during their
life time. So, lets respectfully jump up on the
concept-shoulders of these giants, a la Newton, and try to
increase our Knowledge Horizon. Bowing down our head at
their feet will only reduce our Knowledge Horizon.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">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;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> Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper
path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true considerations;
with most of them I can agree. However two comments from my
view:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows
always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result as a
fact in so far that the real speed of light is constant.
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry there are
no perfect vacuum in space, or on earth. Even a few atoms
per 100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an effective refractive
index for light in that volume. The outer space is a bit
more rarer.]
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I forgot to
say: Measurement of c outside a gravitational field. - Of course
this and the vacuum is nowhere perfectly available, but we come so
close to it that we have sufficiently </font><font face="Times
New Roman, Times, serif">good <font size="+1">results. </font><font
size="+1">In the gravitational field on the earth the speed of
light is reduced by round about a portion of about 10<sup>-6</sup>
. And i</font></font><font size="+1"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">n the DESY synchrotron there was a vacuum
good enough so that c was only reduced by a portion of about 10<sup>-15</sup>.
I think that this comes close enough to the ideal conditions so
that we can draw conclusions from it. And the equations
describing this can be proven by a sufficient precision.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity then only the
<i>measured </i>c is constant. It looks constant because, if
the measurement equipment is in motion, the instruments change
their indications so that the result shows the known constant
value. - I personally follow the Lorentzian relativity because
in this version the relativistic phenomena can be deduced from
known physical behaviour<span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">.[I am more
comfortable with Lorentzian logics than Einsteinian.
However, I do not consider this thinking will remain intact
as our understanding evolves further. </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">]</span><span
style="color:windowtext"> </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Which kind of
changes do you expect?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="color:windowtext">So, it is true physics</span><span
style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry, I do not
believe that we will ever have access to a final (“true”)
physics theory! We will always have to keep on iterating the
postulates and the corresponding theories to make them
evolve as our mind evolves out of biological-survival-logics
towards impartial-observer-logics.]</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Perhaps it was
bad wording from my side. - Whereas I understand Einstein's
relativity as a mathematical system, the Lorentzian is intended to
describe physics. That was meant.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He
has in the preceding discussion here given an equation,
according to which the speed of light can go up to infinity.
This is to my knowledge in conflict with any measurement.<span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> [I agree with you.
All equations for propagating wave tell us that the speed is
determined by the intrinsic physical tension properties of
the corresponding mother “field”. I have not found
acceptable logic to support infinite speed for propagating
waves.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And I
have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment, which
was Compton scattering at protons<span style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[There are number of
papers that explain Compton Effect using semi classical
theory, using X-rays as classical wave packets. De Broglie
got his Nobel based on his short PhD thesis proposing “Pilot
Wave” for electron diffraction phenomenon along with
“Lambda= “h/p”. I happened to have proposed particles as
localized harmonic oscillators with characteristic “Kinetic
Frequency”, rather than wavelength (See Ch.11 of my “Causal
Physics” book). This explains particle diffraction without
the need of “wave particle duality”. I have separately
published paper modeling, using spectrometric data, that QM
predicted photon is a transient photon at the moment of
emission with energy “hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a
quasi-exponential wave packet with a carrier frequency “v”.
This bridges the gap between the QM predictions and all the
successes of the classical HF integral. ]</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I am sorry that
I mentioned that this experiment was intended to check a specific
property of the Compton effect. Because this fact is of no
relevance for our discussion here. The relevant point is that an
electron of a defined energy was converted into something which we
call a "photon". And after about 10 meters flight through the air
with a negligible deflection it was reconverted into an
electron-positron pair, which then represented the energy of the
original electron. And this was done for different energies of
this original electron. - My question is how this process can be
explained without the assumption that the photon did have a
quantized amount of energy, which means it to be a particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding the particle wave question I have presented every time
at our SPIE meeting in San Diego a particle model which is in fact
a specific realization of de Broglie's pilot wave idea. I did not
develop the model for this purpose but to explain SRT, gravity and
the fact of inertial mass. The result was then that is also
fulfils the idea of de Broglie. It explains the process of
diffraction and the relation between frequency and energy. - And
last time in San Diego I have also explained that it explains -
with some restrictions - the photon.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0"> </span> An
electron of defined energy was converted into a photon. The
photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small angles (so
almost no influence) and then re-converted into an
electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it
reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the energy
of the originals electron. This was repeated for electrons of
different energies. - I do not see any explanation for this
process without the assumption that there was a photon (i.e. a
quantum) of a well defined energy, not a light wave.
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Albrecht, with
my limited brain-time, I do not understand , nor can I dare
to explain away everything. But, remember, that literally,
millions of optical engineers for two centuries, have been
using Huygens-Fresnel’s classical diffraction integral to
explain many dozens of optical phenomena and to design and
construct innumerable optical instruments (spectroscopes,
microscopes, telescopes (including grazing angle X-ray
telescope), etc. QM has never succeeded in giving us any
simple integral equivalent to HF-integral. That is why all
these millions of optical scientists and engineers give only
“lip service” to the photon concept and happily and
successfully keep on using the HF integral! My prediction is
that this will remain so for quite a while into the future.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I again refer
to my particle model as said above. It explains all the known
optical phenomena. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Let us recall
that neither Newtonian, nor Einsteinian Gravity can predict
the measured distribution of velocities of stars against the
radial distance in hundreds of galaxies; even though they
are excellent within our solar system. However, Huygens
postulate (Newton’s contemporary) of wave propagation model
of leveraging some tension field still lives-on remarkably
well. This significance should be noted by particle
physicists!].</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I do not see
what in detail is not postulated regarding the stars observed. My
model also explains phenomena like Dark Matter and Dark Energy if
you mean this. And my model of gravity (which is an extension of
the Lorentzian relativity to GRT) is since 13 years in the
internet, and since 12 years it is uninterruptedly the no. one
regarding the explanation of gravitation (if looking for "The
Origin of Gravity" by Google). Maybe worth to read it. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the
mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and the
reality is my approach. I think the constant speed of
light assumption is one of the first pillars that must
fall. If there is such a constant it should in my opinion
be interpreted as the speed of Now…”. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally
flawed postulate by the theoretician Einstein, so fond of
“Gedanken Experiments”. Unfortunately, one can cook up wide
varieties of logically self-consistent mathematical theories
and then match them up with “Gedanken” experiments! We know
that in the real world, we know that the velocity of light
is dictated by both the medium and the velocity of the
medium. Apparently, Einstein’s “Gedanken Experiment” of
riding the crest of a light wave inspired him to construct
SRT and sold all the mathematical physicists that nature if
4-diemsional. Out of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe
that the universe could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, ….
dimensional system where many of the dimensions are “folded
in” !!!! By the way, running time is not a measurable
physical parameter. We can contract or dilate frequency of
diverse oscillators, using proper physical influence, not
the running time. Frequency of oscillators help us measure a
period (or time interval).
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have recognized this
“Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which are
obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five blinds can
collaborate to construct a reasonable model of the Cosmic
Elephant and then keep on iterating the model ad infinitum,
or (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of external objects
projected inside a cave wall”. Unfortunately, we become
“groupies” of our contemporary “messiahs” to survive
economically and feel “belonging to the sociaety”. The
result is the current sad state of moribund physics
thinking. Fortunately, many people have started challenging
this moribund status quo with papers, books, and web forums.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable renaissance
in physics coming within a few decades! Yes, it will take
time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” of 1905 still
dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical engineer
ever try to propagate an “indivisible quanta”; they always
propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate Fourier
monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature; nor is a
causal signal. [I have been trying to correct this
fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of
thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the Ch.12
of the above book. I have now generalized the approach by
anchoring our sustainable evolution to remain anchored with
the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution Process
Congruent Thinking” [see attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately bring a
challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up by our
neural network for survival; then who has the authority to
define objective reality? Everybody, but collaboratively,
like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the seeing
“color” is an interpretation by the brain. It is a complete
figment of our neuro-genetic interpretation! That is why
none of us will succeed in quantitatively defining the
subtlety of color variation of any magnificent color
painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The “color” is
not an objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle
difference, from seeing “color”, to
<b><i>quantifying energy content per frequency interval.</i></b>
This is “objective” science determined by instruments
without a “mind”, which is reproducible outside of human
interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered this
technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has been
nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion years
without the intervention of humans. We are a very late
product of this evolution. This is an objective recognition
on our part! Our, successful evolution needed “instantaneous
color” recognition to survive for our day-to-day living in
our earlier stage. We have now overcome our survival mode as
a species. And we now have become a pest in the biosphere,
instead of becoming the caretaker of it for our own
long-term future. <b><i>This is the sad break in our
wisdom.</i></b> This is why I am promoting the concept,
“Urgency of Evolution Process Congruent Thinking”. This
approach helps generate a common, but perpetually evolving
thinking platform for all thinkers, whether working to
understand Nature’s Engineering (Physics, Chemistry,
Biology, etc.) or, to carry out our Social Engineering
(Economics, Politics, Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a
deeper path to introspection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine but
the transcript is available and Anl Seth states what many
people studying the human psyche as well as eastern
philosophy have said for centuries , Yes we are
Hallucinating reality and our physics is built upon that
hallucination, but it works so well, or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine
contends <a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a file
icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the disk, but
these icons as well as the "hallucinations" are connected to
some reality and we must take them seriously. Deleting the
icon also deletes the disk which may have disastrous
consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts
route and try to understand the universe and photons first
based upon the idea that it is independently real and then
solve the human consciousness problem or we can take the
opposite approach and rebuild a physics without the
independent physical reality assumption and see if we cannot
build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory. Concentrating
on finding the mechanisms of connection between the
Hallucination and the reality is my approach. I think the
constant speed of light assumption is one of the first
pillars that must fall. If there is such a constant it
should in my opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now , a
property we individually apply to all our observations.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear
colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately
there has been continuing discussion on the role of
observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We must
guide ourselves to understand and model the universe
without human mind shaping the cosmic system and its
working rules. This suggestion comes from the fact that
our own logic puts the universe to be at least 13
billion years old, while we, in the human form, have
started evolving barely 5 million years ago (give or
take).
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined and
decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate
perpetual iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on
advancing. This is well justified in the following
TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<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 href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?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"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<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 href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"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"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="57">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"
border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="415">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
<span style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</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:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>