<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chandra,</p>
<p>a agree with you that philosophy is a nice and an important
topic. But it has to be based on correct and solid physics,
otherwise we will never have usable results.</p>
<p>In my last mail I have asked you a question regarding your
opinion about a photon / wave packet, what ever. My question was
whether you think that a photon has a different structure
depending on its energy. Your preceding mail sounded to me like
that. But you did not answer my question. And without clarifying
this point we will not get ahead.</p>
<p>Then later we should discuss the philosophical issues you have
addressed.<br>
</p>
<p>I will be happy to have a book of you, thank you for a reference.
But your reference below guides me to a list of something which I
am not able to bring into some order, so not to a book.<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.08.2017 um 00:09 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CY4PR05MB323757817B1EA824B4DE39E093B10@CY4PR05MB3237.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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{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><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht: Let me start by
quoting your concluding statement:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“You have the idea of your
Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is an
intelligent idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for
all this, which is as simple and as classical as possible
(avoiding phenomena like excitations), and at present I
believe that my model is closer to this goal.”</span></i><span
style="font-size:13.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The implied meaning to me is
that I have proposed a model that is totally irreconcilable
to your model of the universe. My book, “Causal Physics:
Photon by Non-Interaction of Waves” CRC, 2014) has given
better explanations for most of the optical phenomena based
upon this re-discovered NIW-property of all waves; which I
have also summarized many times in this forum. See the last
paragraph to appreciate why my mental logic was forced to
accept</span> the “<span style="font-size:13.5pt">Complex
Tension Field” holds 100% of the cosmic energy. I understand
that it is a radical departure from the prevailing
“successful” theories. However, it makes a lot of mutually
congruent sense even for some cosmological phenomena.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Differences in our opinions
are OK. That is the purpose of this forum. Further, I would
not dare to claim that my model of the universe is THE
correct one; or even the best one for the present! I am open
to enriching my thinking by learning from other models. This
is the key reason why I have been investing decades of my
time to re-energize the enquiring minds of many through (i)
organizing special publications, (ii) special conferences
and this (iii) web-based open forum. Because, I, alone,
simply cannot solve the culturally and historically imposed
tendency of believing what appears to be currently working
knowledge, as the final knowledge. Presently, this is
happening in all spheres of human theories (knowledge),
whether meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry,
biology, etc.) and Social Engineering (politics, economics,
religions, etc.).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I also believe that we are all
“blind people”, modeling the Cosmic Elephant based on our
individual perceptions and self-congruent logical
intelligence. We now need to keep working to develop some
“logical connectivity” to bring out some form of “conceptual
continuity” between our different and imagined descriptions
of the Cosmic Elephant. Finding working logics behind
persistent, but logical evolution, in nature cannot be
resolved by democratic consensus. Further, we are in a
position to declare our current understanding as the final
laws of nature. The working rules in nature has been set
many billions of years before our modern Gurus started
defining the creator of the universe as various forms of
gods. None of our major messiahs have ever alerted us that
we must develop the technology to travel to planets in
distant stars before the earth is vaporized due to the
eventual arrival of Solar Warming due to its evolution into
a Red Giant! Fortunately, some of our foresighted engineers
have already started to develop the early experimental steps
towards that vision.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">However much you may dislike
“philosophy” (methodology of thinking, or epistemology);<b><i>
it is the key platform where we can mingle our ideas to
keep generating something better and better and better.
</i></b>That has been the entire history of human
evolution. Except, human species have now become too
self-centered and too arrogant to care for the biosphere. We
are now virtually a pest in the biosphere. Scientific
epistemology that is totally disconnected from our
sustainability would be, eventually, a path to our own
extinction. Our epistemology must be grounded to
sustainability for our own collective wellbeing. All the
accomplishments, from the ancient times, then from Galileo,
Newton, then from Einstein, Heisenberg, and then, all the
way to recent times, would not mean an iota to our
grand-grand-grand kids if the Global warming takes a
decisive irreversible slide! None other than Einstein
pronounced in 1947:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">“Science without
epistemology is — insofar as it is thinkable at all —
</span></i><b><i><span
style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#C00000">primitive and
muddled.</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt">
”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">This is why I have started
promoting the overarching concept, “The Urgency of Evolution
<b><i>Process </i></b>Congruent Thinking”. The “Process” is
connected to engineering (practical) thinking. It is not
some grandiose and complex approach like mathematics behind
the “String Theory”, which only a limited number of people
with mathematically inclined brains can understand and
participate after dedicating at least a decade of their
professional lives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The recognition of the
importance of “Evolution Process Congruent Thinking” is
trivially simple. What has been the basic urge common to all
species, from bacteria to humans? (i) Keep striving to do
better than our current best and (ii) live forever
pragmatically through our progenies. For knowledgeable
humans, it means to assure the sustainability of our
biosphere that collectively nurtures mutually dependent all
lives.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Finally, I need to underscore
the origin of my concept of Complex Tension Field (CTF).
This was necessary to accommodate (i) constant velocity of
light in every part of the universe and (ii) Optical Doppler
Shifted spectra from atoms in any star in any galaxy,
including our Sun. All atoms, whether in earth lab or in a
distant star corona, are experiencing the same stationary
CTF. But, the trigger point to conceive CTF came from my
re-discovery of the Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW); which is
already built into our current math. However, the inertia of
our cultural tendency is to continue believing in non-causal
postulate of wave-particle duality from the erroneous
assumption that Superposition Principle is an observable
phenomenon. It is not. The observable phenomenon is the
causal and measurable Superposition Effect reported through
physical transformation in detectors. My book, “Causal
Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves”, is the
result of some 50 years of wide variety of optical
experiments. By my own philosophy, it is definitely not
infallible. However, it would be hard to neglect, at least
in the field of optical sciences. Please, go to the web site
to down load my recent Summer School course summarizing my
book.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><a
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">It summarizes the breadth of
my book as applied to optical sciences. [Indian paperback is
already published. I am now working on a Chinese edition and
then convert to Senior level optics text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Sorry, Albrecht, for such a
long reply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper
path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">do you really see a structural
difference of photons (or of EM waves) depending on their
frequency/energy? You surely know that this does not conform
to the general understanding of present physics? And now in
your view: at which frequency/energy does the structure
change? Because at some point there must be a break, doesn't
it?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Why do you think that photons
(Gamma wave packets) do not have inertial mass? They have
energy, no doubt. And energy is related to inertial mass,
agree? Photons / Gamma wave packets - also low energy wave
packets - have a momentum and cause a radiation pressure. We
know - and can measure - the radiation pressure of the sun.
Spaceships react on it. To my knowledge, no one has never
met a photons which no mass. The assumption of no-mass is
the result of a model, nothing more.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The conversion of particles is
an unresolved question of present physics. QM is giving
descriptions - they have generation operators - but as
usual no physical explanation. - I find it funny that
photons can be generated in large numbers when an electric
charge experiences a changing field, supposed the necessary
energy is present. The other reaction, the conversion of a
photon into an electron-positron pair is in the view of my
particle model not surprising. You may remember that in my
model a lepton and a quark is built by a pair of massless
"Basic" particles (which have electric charge). I find it
possible that also a photon is built in this way, but as the
photon has twice the spin of a lepton/quark it may be built
by two pairs of basic particles rather than one, which have
in this case positive and negative electric charges. And if
now the photon interacts with another object so that
momentum can be exchanged, it may break off into two halves,
so into an electron and a positron as all necessary
constituents are already there. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Why does a photon cause
scattering, interference, and so on? Because in this model
it has positive and negative electric charges in it. And as
these charges a orbiting (with c of course) they cause an
alternating electric field in the vicinity, and so there is
a classical wave causing this wave-related behaviour. I find
this simple, and it fits to de Broglie's idea, and in
addition it solves the particle-wave question very
classically. And this works independent of the energy
(=frequency) of the photon.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">You have the idea of your
Complex Tension Field. Now doubt that this is an intelligent
idea. My goal, however, is to find a model for all this,
which is as simple and as classical as possible (avoiding
phenomena like excitations), and at present I believe that
my model is closer to this goal.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I think that this is the
difference between our models.</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"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Am
01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Albrecht: </span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Your “photon” is
of Gamma frequency, whose behavior is dramatically
different from those of frequencies of X-rays and all the
lower ones to radio. Yes, I agree that the behavior of
Gamma wave packet is remarkably similar to particles; <b><i>but
they are not inertial particles</i></b>. They are
still non-diffracting EM
<b><i>wave packets</i></b>, always traveling with the same
velocity “c” in vacuum and within materials, except while
directly head-on encountering heavy nucleons. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">I have written
many times before that the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction
integral correctly predicts that the propensity of
diffractive spreading of EM waves is inversely
proportional to the frequency. Based upon experimental
observations in multitudes of experiments, it is clear
that EM waves of Gamma frequency do not diffractively
spread; they remain localized.
<b><i>Buried in this transitional behavior of EM waves
lies deeper unexplored physics. I do not understand
that.</i></b> But, that is why I have been, in
general, pushing for incorporating Interaction Process
Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E), over and above the
prevailing Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Current particle
physics only predicts and validates that Gamma-energy,
through interactions with heavy nucleons, can become a
pair of electron and positron pair. Similarly, an electron
can break up into a pair of Gamma wave packets. Their
velocity always remain “c”, within materials (except
nucleons), or in vacuum!! They are profoundly different
from inertial particles.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">This is why, I
have also postulated that the 100% of the energy of the
universe is in the form of a very tense and physically
stationary Complex Tension Field (CTF). This CTF is also
the universal inertial reference frame. Elementary
particles that project inertial mass-like property through
interactions, are self-looped resonant oscillation of the
same CTF. This internal velocity is the same c as it is
for EM waves. However, their The linear excitations of the
CTF, triggered by diverse dipoles, EM waves are
perpetually pushed by the CTF to regain its state of
unexcited equilibrium state. This is the origin of
perpetual velocity of EM wave packets. For self-looped
oscillations, f, at the same velocity c, the CTF “assumes”
that it is perpetually pushing away the perturbation at
the highest velocity it can. Unfortunately, it remains
locally micro-stationary (self-looped). The corresponding
inertial property becomes our measured (rest mass =
hf-internal). When we are able to bring other particles
nearby, thereby introducing effective perceptible
potential gradient to the first particle, it “falls” into
this potential gradient, acquiring extra kinetic energy of
(1/2)mv-squared = hf-kinetic. This f-kinetic is a
secondary oscillatory frequency that facilitates the
physical movement of the particle through the CTF. This
f-kinetic frequency replaces de Broglie pilot wave and
removes the unnecessary postulate of wave-particle
duality. [See the attached Ch.11 of my book.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Most likely, you
would not be happy with my response because, (i) we model
nature very differently, and (ii) I do not understand the
physical processes behind the transformations: Gamma to
Electron+Positron, or Electron to Gamm-Pair.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">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> Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM<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><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Chandra,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">I now feel a bit helpless. I
thought that I have written clearly enough that the
Compton Effect is NOT the aspect I wanted to present and
to discuss here. True that this was the original purpose
of the experiment, but the aspect of the experiment used
for my question was different. But now you write: </span>
<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">"</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#990000">So, I assume that
you are asking me to explain physical process behind
Compton Effect by classical approach.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">"
</span><span style="font-size:13.5pt"> What can I do that
you do not turn around my intention? Write in capital
letters?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">So once again the following
process: An electron of a certain energy is converted into
something called traditionally a "photon". Then after a
flight of about 10 meters through air this photon is
re-converted into an electron-position pair. The energy of
this pair is exactly the energy of the originating
electron. And again my question: How can one explain this
process if it is not assumed that this "photon" carried
exactly this amount of energy? And what is wrong with the
assumption that this "photon" was - at least in this
application - some type of a particle?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">You have attached several
papers about photons. I have looked through most of them
(as much as it was possible in a limited time). I have
found almost nothing there which has to do with my
question above.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The first paper is about the
Compton Effect. So, not at all my topic here.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The second paper is a
combination of several sub-papers. In the third of these
sub-papers the author (Rodney Loudon) has presented
different occurrences of a photon with respect to
different experiments. And in his view the photon can
exhibit a behaviour as it appeared in my experiment. In
the others I did not find something similar. (Perhaps I
have overlooked the corresponding portions and you can
help me with a reference.)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">The third paper (of W.E.
Lamp) denies the occurrence of a photon like in my
experiment completely. How should I make use of this
paper?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Or what did I overlook?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">In general I see good
chances to explain many physical phenomena classically
which are according to main stream only treatable (however
mostly not "understandable") by quantum mechanics. This is
a master goal of my work. But the papers which you have
sent me are all following main stream in using quantum
mechanics. So, also the mystification of physics done by
QM/Copenhagen. I thought that also you have been looking
for something alternative and new.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Albrecht</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 31.07.2017 um 21:45 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:windowtext">Albrecht:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.)</span><o:p></o:p></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</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#C00000"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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>!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">==================================================</span><o:p></o:p></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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>