<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chandra:</p>
<p>anxious to here how Albrecht responds to the alternative
explanations of his thesis</p>
<p>Regarding your philosophic comment - Thank you , exactly why I'm
writing a book on the subject. <br>
</p>
<p>I read your "Urgency of evolution.." paper and agree with most
of your sentiment but find the physics arguments most useful- Your
slide #20 and your IPM-E analysis dove tails, in my opinion with a
kind of loading theory that Eric tried to address in his sPIE
paper , In fact I talked to him and he said that early school
experiments he had done show that the onset of the work function
offset is NOT instantaneous as stated in most text books. If a
verified experiment could measure the delay we could get a handle
on the rate of the ensemble energy build up of the many packets
your analysis shows. <br>
</p>
<p>He also uses the analogy of a kind of cup filled up</p>
<p>In my paper I proposed gravitational fluctuations (Cahill) might
do the trick but our verification experiments have not shown the
effect.</p>
<p>Another aspect to the argument is the resonant antenna work that
is now being verified in Nano wires , these can pull in EM energy
from a crossection larger than an electron orbit and thus answer
the density problem, which forced people to assume particle light.
<br>
</p>
<p>Wolf</p>
<p>PS: I still do not see any of my comments in the disussion group
and this makes it difficult to follow a thread. <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 7/31/2017 12:45 PM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234ABE5A2D4CA68AF5C70CD93B20@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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{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:windowtext">Albrecht:</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">“How do you explain
<b><i>the process going on in my experiment</i></b> without
assuming the photon as a particle? (Details again below.)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">“And I have (also)
repeatedly referred to my
<b><i>PhD experiment, which was Compton scattering at
protons.</i></b>”… Albrecht<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I picked up the
above quotations from below. So, I assume that you are
asking me to explain physical process behind Compton Effect
by classical approach.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I am attaching two
papers in support of semi-classical approach. Dodd directly
goes to explain Compton Effect by semi-classical model.
Nobeliate Lamb puts down the very “photon” concept
generically. I knew Lamb through many interactions. Myself
and another colleague had edited a special issue in his
honor (see attached) dedicated on his 90<sup>th</sup>
birthday.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">PS: </span>
</i></b><b><i><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0">Regarding
Philosophy:</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0">
</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">In my
viewpoint, the <b><i>gravest mistake</i></b> of the physics
community for several hundred years has been to consider
self-introspection of our individual thinking logic as
unnecessary philosophy. Erroneous assumption behind that is
to think that our neural network is a perfectly objective
organ; rather than a generic “hallucinating” organ to assure
our successful biological evolution. It is high time that
physicists, as a community, start appreciating this limiting
modes of thinking logic have been holding us back. This is
why I have become a “broken record” to repeatedly keep on
“playing” the same ancient story of five collaborating blind
men modeling an elephant. Their diverse “objective”
observations do not automatically blend in to a logically
self-consistent living animal. Only when they impose the
over-arching condition that it is a living animal, their
iterative attempts to bring SOME conceptual continuity
between the diverse “objective” observations; their model
starts to appear as “elephant-like”! The Cosmic Elephant,
that we are trying to model, is a lot more complex system.
We are not yet in a position to declare a<b><i>ny of our
component theories
</i></b>as a final theory! Fortunately, reproducible
experimental validations of many mathematical theories imply
that the laws of nature function causally. Sadly, Copenhagen
Interpretation insists on telling nature that she ought to
behave non-causally at the microscopic level. As if, a macro
<b><i>causal universe</i></b> can emerge out of
<b><i>non-causal micro universe</i></b>!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">==================================================<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Therefore the main point of
my mail: How do you explain
</span><b><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#7030A0">the
process going on in my experiment</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#7030A0">
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt">without assuming the
photon as a particle? (Details again below.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<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;color:#6B2369">Albrecht: </span>
<o:p></o:p></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.</span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></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”? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">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;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>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 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>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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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
</span>good <span style="font-size:13.5pt">results. 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 in 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.<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Which kind
of changes do you expect?</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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. <span
style="color:#C00000">
And I have (also) repeatedly referred to my <b><i>PhD
experiment, which was Compton scattering at protons.</i></b></span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000">[</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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I again
refer to my particle model as said above. It explains all
the known optical phenomena.
</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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.
</span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<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>
<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>
<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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<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"><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>
</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>