<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>Albrecht:</p>
    <p>i would be interested in the copy but I think I have access to
      the referenced paper.</p>
    <p>Chandra makes a good point in that as one goes to higher
      frequencies wave packets tend to become more localizable and
      therfore perhaps your experiment can be explained by a localized
      wave rather than a particle</p>
    <p>but this brings me to another question that has bothered me since
      highschool. The wavelength of light is a propagation phenomena in
      he direction of propagation how do people justify using it as a
      measure of the wavefront size. This in radar frequencies  is the
      beam width. seems to me the wavelength only comes into play
      because the at shorter wavelengths the beam width and be made
      narrow using larger antennas. so the wave front size is determined
      by the materal shpe through which the energy passes not the
      wavelength<br>
    </p>
    <p>if we do crossection calculations using a photon model we would
      be dealing with many photons , which is Chandra's argument in his
      SPIE 2015 paper , the presence of many wave packets in the photo
      elecric effect tells us something about the binding energy of
      electron dipoles not aboit the particle nature of light. Does the
      frequency of many wve packets reaching a threshold to produce an
      electron positron pair not also tell us something akin to a
      loading theory explained by the properties of space, that when
      stimulated by many waves at a specific frequency  will react at
      one point because the waves randomly add up to cross a threshhold
      not because the light is made of little bullets.</p>
    <p>wolf<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 8/2/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:14844045-1b4f-5913-36f6-d9133015ae83@a-giese.de">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <p>Dear Eric,</p>
      <p>it is not so simple to mail you my thesis, because by that time
        (1975) nothing was made available online. My original paper is
        more than 80 pages, so not so easy to scan it. But DESY has
        published in advance a short form of the experiment, accessible
        by the following reference:</p>
      <p>G. Buschhorn et al.,  <span>Measurement of proton compton
          scattering at 6 GeV and small momentum transfers,</span> 
        Physics Letters B, Volume 33, Issue 3, 1970, pp. 241-244.</p>
      <p>Do you have access to Physics Letters? In case not, I can mail
        you a copy of it.</p>
      <p>Regards<br>
        Albrecht<br>
      </p>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 01.08.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Eric
        Reiter:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
        cite="mid:1770707350.4893859.1501613527270@mail.yahoo.com">
        <div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times,
          serif;font-size:medium;">
          <div>Eric says: Dear Albrecht. </div>
          <div>Please.  I would like a copy of your thesis.  </div>
          <div>Thank You.  Eric S Reiter</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <hr>
          <div id="ydp69cfd7dfyahoo_quoted_2142183522"
            class="ydp69cfd7dfyahoo_quoted">
            <div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
              sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
              <div>On Monday, July 31, 2017, 2:26:20 PM PDT, Wolfgang
                Baer <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
                  href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"
                  moz-do-not-send="true"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>
                wrote:</div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div><br>
              </div>
              <div>
                <div id="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608">
                  <div>
                    <p>Albrecht:</p>
                    <p>Thank you for Einsein's Paper especially a german
                      version. As I said I can no longer remember the
                      exact reference for the formula and but it was a
                      book edited by Sommerfeld " The principle of
                      Relativity" in which several of Einsteins papers
                      were translated into english. I'll try to chase it
                      down.</p>
                    <p>I'm sorry I do not find your references to
                      synchotron experiments that prove the speed of
                      light is constant, I do have your thesis
                      experiment but thought this pertained to the
                      photon question , nor can I find your equation of
                      the change in c in a gravitational field.<br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>But in any case is the formula mc<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                      *(1/(1 + 2x/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
                      = ~  m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> + mx -
                      (1/2)v<sup>2</sup>  where "x" the local
                      gravitational potential,  not correct for a single
                      mass particle traveling at velocity v , and is the
                      approximation not correct for v< c? <br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    According to Mach's principle  mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                    = -mMuG/Ru   in other words mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2 </sup>is
                    the gravity potential in intergalactic space but
                    still inside the mass shell <br clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    So these considerations gives me a very simple
                    classic visualization of most of the relativistic
                    effects,  when v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> terms can
                    be neglected. All I've done is acknowledged that
                    there is a universe mass shell gravity effect on
                    the  speed of light, and if we accept that then we
                    can retain most of our classic physics. <br
                      clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    What I am looking for is experiments that prove
                    Einstein's general relativity is correct beyond the
                    v<sup>4</sup>/c<sup>4</sup> approximation. <br
                      clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    AS an interesting aside if you accept that all we
                    need to do is include the Mass shell in the gravity
                    potential then we can rewrite the energy relation as
                    a momentum relationship <br clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    mc = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub> *(1/(c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                    + 2x  - v<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>) =  m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub>
                    *(1/(V-T)<sup>1/2</sup>) = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub>
                    *(1/(L)<sup>1/2</sup>) <br clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    and multipying by c<sub>0</sub><br clear="none">
                    gives    mcc<sub>0</sub> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> 
                    *(1/(L)<sup>1/2</sup>) <br clear="none">
                    which suggests the Relativistic correction simply
                    accounts for the fact that phase rather than group
                    velocity is used in some measurements like michelson
                    morely and light bending while group velocity is
                    used in Shapiro's measurements. I have not pursued
                    this but always wondered that the wave mechanics has
                    a phase x group velocity be a constant.<br
                      clear="none">
                    <br clear="none">
                    Wolf<br clear="none">
                    <pre class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">On
                      7/31/2017 8:08 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p>Wolf,</p>
                    <p>attached I have added here the original paper of
                      Einstein from 1905 as a facsimile (so in German).
                      I cannot find your equation in his paper.</p>
                    <p>Regarding the change of c in a gravitational
                      field: I have given you several times the equation
                      for that. So not a point of discussion. But you
                      complained in the other mail that you have asked
                      me half a dozen times for a measurement of the
                      speed of light, without response as you said. For
                      this I have given you the reference to my earlier
                      mail where I referred to and explained the
                      permanent measurement of c in particle
                      accelerators, particularly in synchrotrons. Also
                      in synchrotrons it follows from the finiteness of
                      c  that the mass <i>m </i>increases with an
                      increasing energy of the particles. <br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>Further questions?</p>
                    <p>Albrecht<br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">Am
                      31.07.2017 um 08:08 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p>Albrecht:</p>
                    <p>That equation waS copied out of Einsteins 1905
                      Paper , I gave the book back to the Library and
                      will have to order it again to verify exactly the
                      context Einstiein used it. It may be I copied the
                      formula wrong and Einstein actually wrote c = c<sub>0</sub>*(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
                      which the gives c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                      +v<sup>2</sup>.</p>
                    <p>In any case if I multiply by the mass "m" of the
                      particle and takes the small velocity
                      approximation one gets mc<sup>2</sup> = mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                      *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
                      =~ mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2 mv<sup>2</sup></p>
                    <p>I believe the point I was trying to make is that
                      the classic Lagrangian = T-V which equals mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>+1/2
                      mv<sup>2  </sup>if mc<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>=
                      -GmMu/Ru . So I'm saying if we simply recognize
                      that a mass "m" even stationary has a
                      gravitational potential inside the mass shell of
                      the universe then at least to terms v4/c4 a
                      completely classic model actually gives us all of
                      the experimentally verified Relativity
                      predictions. <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>Furthermore if we write mc<sup>2</sup> = m<sub>0</sub>c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>
                      *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>)
                      then it is quite arbitrary to which parameter m<sub>0</sub>
                      or c<sub>0 </sub>one apples the SRT correction
                      to. You like applying it to the mass and say that
                      mass increases. I thought it makes more sense to
                      apply it to the speed of light <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>Whether I made a mistake in copying Einsteins
                      formula or not the argument I was trying to make
                      is the same. The speed of light depends upon the
                      gravitational potential in which the measurement
                      of the speed of light is made, it is not constant</p>
                    <p><br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>Wolf<br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p> <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p> <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <pre class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang 
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">On
                      7/30/2017 12:00 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p>Wolf,</p>
                    <p>in my mail of July 6 I have explained that any
                      particle accelerator and particularly a
                      synchrotron is a permanent check for the speed of
                      light, and in particular also a check of the
                      Lorentz transformation where it describes the
                      behaviour of an object being accelerated towards
                      c. And that a behaviour of physics regarding c
                      different from the Lorentz transformation would
                      require a different design of particle
                      accelerators. So, the opinion of main stream
                      regarded the measured value of the speed of light
                      is permanently confirmed.<br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>And in your mail of July 4 you presented the
                      following equation for the speed of light:<br
                        clear="none">
                      c<sup>2</sup> = c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup> *(1/(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>).<br
                        clear="none">
                      What ever the conditions for this equation should
                      be, there exist conditions for c to go to
                      infinity. To this equation I have referred. <br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>Albrecht<br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">Am
                      29.07.2017 um 08:21 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p>Clarification: <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>I have submitted equations in which the
                      approximation of ( +2mm<sub>l</sub>G/r -2mc<sup>2</sup>-
                      mv<sup>2</sup>)<sup>-1/2</sup> =<sup> </sup>~  <sup>
                      </sup>1/2 mv<sup>2</sup> + mc<sup>2</sup> -mm<sub>l</sub>G/r</p>
                    <p>So that simply by recognizing that mc<sup>2 </sup>is 
                      the classic potential energy inside a mass shell 
                      -m *Mu* G/Ru  ofthe Universe we get a very simple
                      cosmology that is completely consistent with all
                      known experiments - the assumption is simply that
                      the speed of light as a surrogate  for the speed
                      of all electromagnetic phenomena is dependent upon
                      the gravitational potential which was shown by
                      Shapiro's experiments. and light bending.and clock
                      slow downs. I interpret  c<sup>2</sup> is the
                      universe escape velocity. <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>This does not mean the speed of light is infinite
                      but only that if we could get outside the mass
                      shell in flat space where the gravitational energy
                      of the universe mass is zero the speed of light is
                      some reference c<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>   In both
                      case the speed of lighjt and the energy is only
                      determined to an arbitrary reference constant what
                      is important is the relative energy or speed of
                      light <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>I'm tired of not being recognized as an
                      intelligent physicist doing physics. I'm only
                      claiming that the the first order approximation is
                      all I know that has been experimentally verified
                      length contraction and close to speed of light
                      experiments are only verified through circular
                      reasoning <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>I have asked Albrecht for references to
                      experiments that show otherwise a half dozen times
                      but am always ignored <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p><br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>wolf<br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <pre class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-signature">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">On
                      7/28/2017 8:54 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p>Chandra,</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:</p>
                    <p>1.) The speed of light: <br clear="none">
                      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. 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. So, it is true physics.<br
                        clear="none">
                    </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.<br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>2) The quantisation of light:<br clear="none">
                      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.  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. <br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p>How does this fit into your understanding?</p>
                    <p>Best wishes<br clear="none">
                      Albrecht</p>
                    <p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<br
                        clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <p><br clear="none">
                    </p>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-cite-prefix">Am
                      26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br
                        clear="none">
                    </div>
                    <blockquote type="cite"> </blockquote>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608WordSection1">
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">Wolf:</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">You
                        have said it well:</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><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></p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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). <span
                          style="font-size:11.0pt;"></span></p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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.</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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”.]</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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].</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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”.</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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.</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">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.).</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">Sincerely,</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">Chandra.</p>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                          style="font-size:11.0pt;">  </span></p>
                      <div>
                        <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
                          1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
                          <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><b><span
                                style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b><span
                              style="font-size:11.0pt;"> General [<a
                                shape="rect"
                                class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
                                rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                                moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
                                Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br
                                clear="none">
                              <b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017
                              12:40 AM<br clear="none">
                              <b>To:</b> <a shape="rect"
                                class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow"
                                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br
                                clear="none">
                              <b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of
                              observer, a deeper path to introspection</span></p>
                        </div>
                      </div>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                      <p>Chandra:</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?</p>
                      <p>However  as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC
                        Irvine  contends <a shape="rect"
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
                          rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                          moz-do-not-send="true">
                          https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a></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.</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. </p>
                      <p>best</p>
                      <p>Wolf</p>
                      <pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer</pre>
                      <pre>Research Director</pre>
                      <pre>Nascent Systems Inc.</pre>
                      <pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432</pre>
                      <pre>E-mail <a shape="rect" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
                      <div>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal">On
                          7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
                          wrote:</p>
                      </div>
                      <blockquote
                        style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;">Dear colleagues:</span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><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></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;"> </span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><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></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;"> </span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><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></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;">Enjoy:</span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;"> </span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;"><a shape="rect"
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"
                              rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                              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></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D;">Chandra.</span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><span
                            style="font-size:14.0pt;"> </span></p>
                        <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"><br
                            clear="none">
                          <br clear="none">
                          <br clear="none">
                        </p>
                        <pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
                        <pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a></pre>
                        <pre><a href=<a shape="rect" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>></pre>
                        <pre>Click here to unsubscribe</pre>
                        <pre></a></pre>
                      </blockquote>
                      <p class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608MsoNormal"> </p>
                    </div>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <fieldset
                      class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                    <br clear="none">
                    <div
                      id="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br
                        clear="none">
                      <table style="border-top:1px solid #D3D4DE;">
                        <tbody>
                          <tr>
                            <td colspan="1" rowspan="1"
                              style="width:55px;padding-top:18px;"><a
                                shape="rect"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
                                rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                                moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
                                  alt=""
                                  style="width:46px;min-height:29px;"
                                  moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
                                  width="46"></a></td>
                            <td colspan="1" rowspan="1"
style="width:470px;padding-top:17px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,
                              Helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Virenfrei.
                              <a shape="rect"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
                                style="color:#4453ea;" rel="nofollow"
                                target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
                            </td>
                          </tr>
                        </tbody>
                      </table>
                      <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608yqt8044876986"
                        id="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608yqtfd90837"> <a
                          shape="rect"
                          href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"
                          rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                          moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
                    </div>
                    <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608yqt8044876986"
                      id="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608yqtfd46267"> <br
                        clear="none">
                      <fieldset
                        class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <br clear="none">
                      <fieldset
                        class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <br clear="none">
                      <fieldset
                        class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <br clear="none">
                      <fieldset
                        class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <br clear="none">
                      <fieldset
                        class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                      <br clear="none">
                      <pre>_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a shape="rect" class="ydp69cfd7dfyiv5536154608moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
                      <br clear="none">
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
                <div class="ydp69cfd7dfyqt8044876986"
                  id="ydp69cfd7dfyqtfd41830">_______________________________________________<br
                    clear="none">
                  If you no longer wish to receive communication from
                  the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
                  List at <a shape="rect"
                    href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com" rel="nofollow"
                    target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">unquant@yahoo.com</a><br
                    clear="none">
                  <a href="<a shape="rect"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
                    rel="nofollow" target="_blank"
                    moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/unquant%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br
                    clear="none">
                  Click here to unsubscribe<br clear="none">
                  </a><br clear="none">
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
        <br>
        <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">"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>
      <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>