<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Dear photon fans</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">As I see the discussions going back and forth, they all have a similar trend. Opinions are expressed and bounced between participants. I have tried to suggest the best or scientific method is to state the physics behind the theory or effect to be conveyed. Then use mathematics to determine the magnitude of that effect. If there is a match between the calculated and observed effects, there is some support for the theory proposed. </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">To this end I append a link to an earlier presentation of my idea of what constitutes photons. It is an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields in the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space respectively. Their oscillatory nature gives them wave properties. Their limited extent gives them particle properties. </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">IMHO their lateral extent allows diffraction and single photon interference. I suggest but haven’t shown that entangled photons would have the same phase and could allow dual and even multiple photon interference. I make other suggestions it it as well. This includes the origins of their mass and spin as angular momentum. Circularly polarized photons will have angular momentum (spin) of hbar. Linearly polarized photons will not. Other spins are possible.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">This was forwarded for discussion. I am repeating it again to suggest that if you want to “get your message or opinion across to others", use that approach. That will give everyone an opportunity to consider the merits or otherwise of your presentation. </div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">If anyone feels my presentation cannot explain an observed photon property I would he happy to consider the observation and determine if it can, or there is a variation that is needed to explain the observation. Or indeed whether it is necessary to start over again.</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Cheers,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Vivian Robinson</div> <br> <div id="bloop_sign_1502243740110717952" class="bloop_sign"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 9 August 2017 at 10:01:41 AM, Eric Reiter (<a href="mailto:unquant@yahoo.com">unquant@yahoo.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:medium;">
<div>
<div>Dear Chip, and other photon fans. </div>
</div>
<div>Arguments trying to make wave-properties from some sort of
fuzzy particle, or desperations like super-c, are very old.
They never worked. Try thinking the other way like I
did. If you see wave effects, maybe it is a wave. See
how our particle-like effects can be understood with threshold and
ratio properties of matter-waves. It works.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I stand with Lorentz, Schrodinger, Sommerfeld, Debye and even
Einstein saying there is something wrong with QM. An early
and very decent argument is by</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> H A Lorentz, "Die hypotheses der lichtquantin", Physik.
Zeitschrift, 1910, pgs 349-359 Vol 11. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I had a translator read it to me. It is in German, and old.
He ends (in translation) like this: light quanta confined in
space and time simply will not do. His argument still holds.
The wave needs to go <b>everywhere</b> to give wave
interference. Also, consider the neutron interferometer.
Any particle construct will suffer in the face of wave
interference. There is a subtle difference between
thresholding and quantizing; this similarity allows many
experiments to <b>look</b> like quantization. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As for Albrecht's experiment. I read the paper he
quoted. I <u>expect</u> QM to be confirmed in that test.
I can see just as well that the threshold model will work.
However, if you do not have a working alternative to QM in
your experimental design, you will see QM. That is why I
devised the experiments I reported at your conference. My
experiment shows the distinction. </div>
<div><br></div>
<div>One more important point bears repeating. The photon is
a phenomenological model. If you are trying to describe the
nature of light, please do not do that in terms of photons.
The photon model equally embraces both wave-like and
particle-like observations. Wave-like and particle-like are
opposites. Please call it light and describe clicks in your
detectors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you.</div>
<div>Eric Reiter</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<hr>
<div id="ydp442491f0yahoo_quoted_3218192019" class="ydp442491f0yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>On Monday, August 7, 2017, 7:04:23 AM PDT, Chip Akins
<chipakins@gmail.com> wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Hi John, and
Chandra</div><div><div id="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980"><div class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980WordSection1">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">As John has pointed
out, the electron behaves in the same manner as light in the double
slit experiment. This is one of the most convincing arguments
for me, that light is also quantized.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">However I feel that
calling this behavior “interference” in the classical wave sense,
is an oversimplification of what is actually occurring in these
experiments.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> It seems to me that
these quantized, coherent, oscillatory energy packets produce
fields, and that these fields in space, travel with the particle
and pass through the apparatus and interact with the apparatus, in
turn producing forces on the electron or photon, guiding its
path.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> But for this to work
in simulation, like it does in experiment, these fields propagate
much faster than light, from the origin particle, into space.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> Chip</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<div class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980yqt5333325533" id="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980yqt90708">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> John Williamson<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 07, 2017 8:29 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br clear="none">
<b>Cc:</b> Mark, Martin van der
<martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
introspection</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">Sorry Chandra but, logic or not, single photon
interference is an almost universally agreed experimental fact, as
is the (more stringent) single electron interference.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Regards, JW.</span></p>
<div>
<div align="center" class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"></div>
<div id="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980divRpF942917">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;">General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra
[chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu]<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:58 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br clear="none">
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a deeper path to
introspection</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chip:</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Since Einstein’s photoelectric
equation basically conforms to measurements; I have attempted to
show that it is also congruent with “Filling the QM cup” model, as
per semi-classical approach for all light-matter
interactions.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> See
slide #20 in the first attachment. Or, go to my web for papers and
download my Colloquium given at the Institute of Optics, Rochester:
<a shape="rect" href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a></span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">It
may take a couple of days for Michael to upload this memory-heavy
presentation with the video clips for MZ-interferometry that makes
the logic of “single photon interference” logically impossible.
Besides, by virtue of the English meaning of the word
“Interference” and its mathematical representation as sum of two or
more waves with different phases; the proposal for “single photon
interference” is a self-contradictory “Magical Thinking”. If
indivisible photons and electrons are stable particles, then they
cannot suddenly become multi-valued and carry multiple phases, the
moment some human being sets up an interferometer to interrogate
their “psychotic” behavior!!! The experiment without the videos are
in the second attachment.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> Chip Akins<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:22 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">Hi Chandra</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> Yes. Please send the
derivation for multi-wave packet stimulation for practical photo
electric effect. I am quite interested.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> Recently I have been
able to make good progress, and have written draft papers on
inertial and gravitational mass, the electron, the fabric of space,
and electric charge. I am now working on the nature of
light.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> Using a fresh approach
to the concept that space is a tension field has yielded many
productive and exciting (for me) results.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> I am also drafting a
response to your requests for how this forum has been of benefit to
my research. Just wanted to thank you for the vision and
drive to establish such a forum. Will send that response
soon. Hope everyone will do the same.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 05, 2017 7:11 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chip:</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">My recent and latest response to Albrecht gives
another articulation of my same old views about EM wave packets
emitted by radio antenna, atoms and nuclei. For the latter two, the
same entity can participate both as emitting or absorbing antenna;
but only momentarily as they undergo level transitions. For radio,
the emitters and receivers have to be designed separately and they
are not inherently quantized.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">All EM wave packets propagate diffractively
spreading and hence </span><b style="font-size: 11pt;"><i>they all have to be divisible</i></b><span style="font-size: 11pt;">,
whether radio wave or gamma wave. However, gamma wave being
extremely low diffracting, it could be possible that a
frequency-resonant nucleus can undergo the necessary transition,
via absorption of the one single frequency-resonant gamma wave
packet; provided the distance between the emitter (source) and
absorber is reasonably small.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Whereas, for visible light photoelectric
effect, it would be practically impossible for a single visible
wave packet to trigger a photo electron transition as they are
highly diffractive. I have the necessary derivation for multi-wave
packet stimulation for practical photo electric effect. If anybody
is interested, I will be happy to send it.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> Chip Akins<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 04, 2017 11:48 AM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
<<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht and
Chandra</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">If you don’t mind I
would like to join this discussion on the nature of light.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">This has been an area
of study for me, also for decades, as Chandra has mentioned.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> But still, it is not
so easy to resolve this issue.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> In this discussion
group, many have made good points on both sides of this
discussion.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> The best analysis I
have been able to make of the experimental data so far, seems to
indicate that light often acts like particles when reacting with
particles, and acts like waves when propagating through space.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> As Chandra has pointed
out, it is possible that light is a wave and the quantization we
notice is induced by the particles (dipoles made of charges from
particles).</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> The underlying cause
for action is what I feel we have to look for. If energy
behaves in a specific manner when confined within a particle, it is
due to the properties of space. Which is to say that the rules
which govern the quantization of energy in particles are rules
imposed by the properties of space. So if those rules exist in
space in order to cause particles of mass, it would follow that
some of the same rules (since these rules are part of space) might
govern the way energy behaves in light.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> As we analyze the
available data <i>E=hv</i> becomes evident. This is a set of
boundary conditions imposed on the behavior of energy in space. But
<i>E=hv</i> applies to the energy in light. The energy in particles
is better characterized by <i>E=hv/2</i>. And the frequency
<i>v</i> in particles of mass is <i>2v</i> the frequency in
light.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> It occurs to me that
the NIW property which Chandra has rediscovered could be due to the
simple preservation of momentum, or it could be due to the
point-like localization of the “energy” at the origin of what we
call a photon.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">So, I am still trying
to sort all this out. But given the information which is known, it
currently feels to me that we should consider that space imposes a
set of rules on the behavior of energy in space.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">If we follow the
concept that space is a tension field, then we must also realize
that in that model, energy must PULL on space, in order for us to
sense that <i>E=hv</i>. This is specifically why we would see that
more energetic particles are <b>smaller particles</b>. And
following that premise to a logical conclusion, light would almost
have to be a quantized wave packet.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">I have found
remarkable agreement between Albrecht’s math and my research, but I
have come to these equations using a totally different approach,
and I do not think the two massless particle explanation for the
electron is the most instructive way to envision this particle.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">My view is more
similar to Chandra’s view that space is a tension field, and
particles are made of energy (which is pulling on this tension
field, causing displacements,) which propagate at the speed of
light. But that premise seems to me to require that the
reaction of space to energy sets up oscillatory boundary
conditions, making more energetic particles smaller, and quantizing
all transverse propagation of energy in space. This means
that I currently feel that photons exist. But I am willing to
entertain alternate suggestions.</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal">Chip</p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Albrecht: Let me start by
quoting your concluding statement:</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></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.</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.).</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></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:</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;">”</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.</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.</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.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;"><a shape="rect" href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</a></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.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Sorry, Albrecht, for such a long
reply.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Chandra. </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of</b> Albrecht Giese<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Chandra,</span></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></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></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></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></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">I think that this is the
difference between our models.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Albrecht</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Am 01.08.2017 um 23:55 schrieb Roychoudhuri,
Chandra:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt;">
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Albrecht:</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;"> </span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext;">Chandra.</span></p>
<p class="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;">From:</span></b> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;">General [<a shape="rect" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of</b> Albrecht Giese<br clear="none">
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:30 PM<br clear="none">
<b>To:</b> <a shape="rect" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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="ydp442491f0yiv1503228980MsoNormal"> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Chandra,</span></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></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></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">The first paper is about the
Compton Effect. So, not at all my topic here.</span></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></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Or what did I
overlook?</span></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></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt;">Albrecht</span></p>
<p> </p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>