<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="-1">Dear Chip,</font></p>
<p><font size="-1">thank you for careful reading. But your
objections are in my view the result of specific preconditions
in your view which are not necessary. I shall respond within
your text.</font><br>
</p>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Am 08.08.2017
um 19:53 schrieb Chip Akins:</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.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;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
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.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;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle28
{mso-style-type:personal;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle29
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your thoughtful response.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few items occur to me while reading your
message.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Exchange particles are a difficult concept,
especially if space is empty. For if space is empty then
there is no causal mechanism which can tell a charged particle
that another charge is in its vicinity. Therefore how do they
know to “exchange photons” if space is completely empty? We
know that a charged particle at rest is NOT continually
radiating photons. We could imagine that it is continually
radiating and absorbing photons to maintain its energy level,
but then we would be able to detect such radiation, and we do
not detect any such radiation from a charged particle at rest.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The concept of
exchange particles which I know (and so far have borrowed from QM)
assumes that a charge is permanently radiating exchange particles
to all directions. As they are understood to be particles they can
fly through empty space without any problem. And you are right
that the radiation of exchange particles is a permanent violation
of the conservation of energy. So, I think that conservation of
energy is not a basic law of nature but a consequence of the set
up of particles. For example, my particle model is built in a way
that it conserves energy, But that is, as I said, a consequence of
the configuration, not at all a general law. And further, as a
consequence there cannot be energy by itself somewhere in space
but energy is a property of an object. There must be objects so
that we have energy.</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another problem with “exchange particles”,
specifically photons as exchange particles for electric
charge, is the phase continuity problem. The idea, as I
understand it, is that the frequency and phase of the exchange
photon determines whether it pushes or pulls on the affected
particle. But charge is constant and very predictable at any
given distance, while phase would change with distance. We
simply do not see the kind of behavior in electric charge we
would see if it were mediated by photons. I have tried to
simulate how it is that photons could provide the force we
sense as electric charge, at any distance, without anomaly,
and there just does not seem to be any way that can work
without invoking some magical and unseen, anti-causal,
mechanism.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You address an
important problem here: the exchange particle emitted by a
positive charge must be different from an exchange particle
emitted by a negative charge. I have asked several theoreticians
of main stream physics just this question. The result was a bit
funny. Some of them were confused and did not know how to answer,
some said that there is never only one exchange particle but
always a collection of them and the configuration within this
collection tell the other charge whether they come form a positive
or a negative one. - I for myself do not think that this is a
workable mechanism. But I like better the idea that these so
called photons are not the same ones as the normal photons
carrying energy, but they are another kind of particle. - I agree
that main stream is propagating an inconsistent model here. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is also quite interesting to me that you
hold Lorentzian relativity to be more correct than Special
relativity, but reject the foundation upon which Lorentz
formulated his relativity. His concept, as best I can
determine from historical accounts, was that space was a
medium, and that the Pythagorean relationships he formulated
were due to the fixed speed of light and energy propagation in
the medium. I also believe that Lorentzian relativity is more
accurate than Special relativity, but I believe that it is
more accurate due to a clear cause and effect, which is only
present if space is a medium.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Lorentz did not
understand space as a medium. There was an interesting and
detailed discussion between Einstein and Lorentz about the
necessity of an ether. Einstein did not want an ether as we know,
but Lorentz found it necessary to explain acceleration and
rotation (which is GRT). And in this discussion it became very
clear that Lorentz did not want anything more than an absolute </font><font
size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">frame of </font><font
size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">reference.
Einstein's argument was that the equivalence of gravity and
acceleration makes this unnecessary; which I find difficult logic.
- The basic difference between the concept of Einstein and the one
of Lorentz regarding SRT are two points: Einstein says that space
contracts at motion, Lorentz says that fields contract at motion.
The measurable consequences of both are the same. For dilation
Einstein says that time slows down whereas Lorentz says that
oscillations slow down; again there is no difference regarding
measurements. - I like the Lorentzian way because it means physics
whereas Einstein's way means mathematical abstractions. </font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><br>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes. Gravity is different than the other
forces. And it is a warping of the fabric of space as
Einstein imagined with General Relativity. The force of
gravity is not generated by the gravitational “field”, for the
gravitational “field” is simply a gradient in space which
causes refraction of energy propagating through the gradient.
The force we feel from that refraction is actually created by
the momentum of the energy circulating within fermionic
particles. So the force is related to the energy content
(mass) of the object which is in the refracting field. In this
way, the momentum of the energy circulating within the
particle causes both inertial mass and gravitational mass. So
there is a causal mechanism, which makes gravitational and
inertial mass appear equivalent, in a specific manner.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">What is a
"gradient of space"? Space is something which we cannot measure
physically, so it is merely a mathematical concept. The reduction
of c in a gravitational field, so in the vicinity of an object, is
clearly measurable (even though not explained by saying this). But
if we assume that forces are mediated by exchange particles, it is
easily understandable that the interaction of any kind of exchange
particles disturbs the path of a light-like particle and so
reduces its speed. More is not necessary. - You say: "The momentum
of the energy circulation within the particle causes both inertial
mass and gravitational mass". To my understanding momentum does
not cause inertial mass but is identical to inertial mass, just
understood in a different context. And what is gravitational mass?
Which mechanism causes a mass to be attracted by another mass? I
have never heart an argument why this should be. The reduction of
c by exchange particles is a possible mechanism and so serves as
an argument.<br>
<br>
And the good point in my view of gravity is that this concept is
extremely easier to handle. I have as a demonstration listed (from
a textbook) the deduction of the Schwarzschild solution via
Einstein. It is a sequence of > 80 equations which need
Riemannian geometry (i.e. a curved 4-dim. space) whereas the
reduction of the Schwarzschild solution by the relativity of
Lorentz and the use of refraction needs about a dozen equations of
school mathematics (so Euclidean geometry) and it yields the same
result. Isn't this a good argument?</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht, thank you for your thoughtful and
intelligent discussion. While we do not agree on certain
aspects, the exchanges are definitely quite helpful to me. I
appreciate that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font size="-1" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It is nice to
have this discussion with you. Thanks<br>
Albrecht</font><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01c301d3106f$4c2ba7a0$e482f6e0$@gmail.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 07, 2017 2:15 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>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>thank you for your response. - I think I have to give some
more comments about my model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I am using the concept of exchange particles (the only idea I
have borrowed from QM) which is not to be confused with
virtual particles. I also believe that virtual particles do
not exist. One well known problem with them is the
cosmological "vacuum catastrophe", which means the difference
between the theoretical energy of all virtual particles summed
up and the real energy in the universe, which means a
conflicting factor of 120 orders of magnitude. This
assumption, also called "vacuum polarization", was invented to
explain the Landé factor of the electron. In my model this
Landé factor can be classically explained.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Exchange particles on the other hand are assumed to mediate
forces. In case of the electric force the photon is assumed to
be the exchange particle, which is (in this case) not a
virtual particle. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>How do you unify gravity and the electric force? This was
attempted by many, also by Einstein who did not succeed with
this idea. A general counterargument is the fact that gravity
is so different from the other "three" forces that I think it
is a completely different phenomenon, not even a force. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>My approach to gravity is so a completely different one. We
know from measurements (and also from Einstein's thoughts)
that the speed of light is reduced in a gravitational field.
(A formula for it follows from Einstein's GRT, but can also be
deduced classically, what my model does.) If accordingly a
light-like particle moves in a gravitational field, then its
path is classically refracted towards the gravitational
source. This - applied to the internal oscillations of a
particle - causes the particle to move towards the
gravitational source by a constant acceleration. This process
fully explains gravitation, the classical one (as of Newton)
as well as the relativistic one (as of Einstein).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Regarding space as pure emptiness, you ask the question: "<span
style="color:#660000">If we assume space is completely empty
then it does become quite difficult to explain the cause for
relationships between space and time, and the cause for a
fixed velocity of light.</span>" In my understanding this is
not a problem. Because if we follow the relativity of Lorentz
rather Einstein, there does not exist a special relationship
between space and time. And the good thing about the
Lorentzian relativity is that it is mathematically much
simpler than Einstein's, more related to physics, and even
though has fundamentally the same results as with Einstein.
Space is then fully described by Euclidean geometry. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>And regarding the speed of light we can change the statement
"nothing can move faster than c" to a more radical one: "all
objects at the lowest level, i.e. basic particles and exchange
particles, <i>only move at c</i>; there is no other speed".
Any objects moving at a different speed than c are not
particles but configurations of particles, which of course can
move at any speed. And why is this speed c constant? Because
if mass-less objects moving at c interact, it is on the lowest
level always an elastic interaction. Such interaction will
change the direction of a motion, but never the speed of a
motion. So if we now assume that during the Big Bang, in this
very dense situation, all objects have taken the same speed,
this speed has normally no reason to change any more later. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that one of the strongest reasons that physics did
not progress during the last century is the assumption that
space has certain properties rather than being empty.
Particularly Einstein's assumptions about space and time have
hampered progress in physics. It seems to me like a religion
as it makes the understanding more complex without any
necessity. Any comparison of the relativity of Einstein with
the approach of Lorentz shows this very clearly.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Best regards<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 06.08.2017 um 20:43 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I really appreciate your response. You
give detailed yet concise explanations and is very helpful.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is quite amazing to me that our two
completely different approaches and perceptions resolves to
mathematics which agree with such accuracy and consistency.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have read much of your work, and find
it mentally stimulating.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, with the approach I have used, I
am able to do all the things you have mentioned as well.
But I am also able to demonstrate quantized electric charge
without resorting to “virtual particles” to do so. In fact I
do not think such particles exist. I have also been able,
recently, to unify the force of electric charge with
gravity, and to show specific cause for inertial and
gravitational mass equivalence. We have both found that the
strong force exists in all particles, and that force is
unified with the other forces as well. Using this approach
there is no reason to try to explain how light mysteriously
only propagates forward at c. It is not a mystery using this
approach. If we assume space is completely empty then it
does become quite difficult to explain the cause for
relationships between space and time, and the cause for a
fixed velocity of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So in my view, particles are not the most
fundamental, but rather space and energy are fundamental.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are problems with conventional QM
which can be removed using such an approach. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For a time in our recent scientific
history many physicists felt that space was empty. This of
course occurred after the introduction of Special
Relativity. But later Einstein himself reversed his view on
this topic, and stated that with General Relativity space is
warped by gravity. One cannot warp what does not exist. But
by the time General Relativity was introduced, the logical
damage had already been done to the then developing QM
theories. So we are stuck with mysterious “virtual
particles” to explain force at a distance, when space itself
is actually the most theoretically economical explanation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I agree, that if you are going to
start with the assumption that space is nothing, empty, then
your approach is about the best one can do. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But it is not requisite that we constrain
our thinking just because many others have a particular
concept. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I feel one of the obstacles which has
prevented our further progress, and caused physics to become
more stagnant in the last century, is this concept that
space is empty. For using that approach, leads to the
unexplainable, or to “magical” explanations, instead of
sound logical cause and effect.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmest Regards<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 06, 2017 10:16 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>Dear Chip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>thank you for your detailed information. My approach is
indeed a bit different and I would like to explain where and
why.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>You refer a lot of the phenomena to properties of space.
That is something I do not. I have just finished reading a
book which explains, in which way Einstein during his whole
life has attempted to explain physical phenomena as
properties of the space. He even tried to develop a
universal field theory (a GTE) in this way. He did not have
success. - I try to do the opposite, so to develop physical
models under the assumption that space is nothing than
emptiness. One specific physical property which is normally
related to space, the speed of light, is in my view the
speed of all (massless) exchange particles which permanently
move at the speed of light. Why are they doing it? I have a
quite simple model for this, but even then it is too
extensive to present it now at this place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Most of the facts which you have addressed in the following
are explained by my (2-particle) model.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>At first the unresolved question why an electron (which is
assumed to be smaller than 10<sup>-18</sup> m) can have a
magnetic moment and a spin having the known values: QM says
merely that this cannot be explained by visualisation, as it
is a QM topic. So, not explained. My model explains it
quantitatively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Further points:<br>
<br>
o particle-wave: the particle has an alternating field
around, which fulfils the requirements in this question<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the mass of any lepton and any quark is correctly given
by the size of the particle. There is only one parameter
free for the corresponding formula, which is h*c (so nothing
new)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the magnetic moment and the spin of all leptons and all
quarks is also quantitatively explained by this model, no
further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relation <i>E=hv </i> follows from this model for
leptons, for quarks, and surprisingly also for photons. So
it is according to my model not a property of the space but
of the model. This can be another indication that the photon
is a particle<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic dilation follows immediately from this
model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic increase of mass at motion follows
directly from this model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the relativistic equation <i>E=mc<sup>2</sup> </i>
follows from the model, no further free parameters needed<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o the dynamical mass of the photon follows from the model
even though not all properties of the photon are explained
by the model. But also the relation <i>E=hv</i> follows
formally also for the photon.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>o energy conservation is in my view not a general property
of the physical world (as it is violated in the case of
exchange particles) but also this is a consequence of the
set up of a particle as described by this model. So the
saying that something is a "consequence of energy in space"
is not reflected by the physical reality<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think that it is a reasonable requirement to judge
physical models by asking for <u>quantitative</u> results
of a model. During my time working on models and
participating in the according conferences I have seen so
many elegant looking models that I did not find a better
criterion for looking deeper into a model than looking for
results, which can be compared to measurements.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>As an introduction I refer again to my web site <a
href="http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.ag-physics.org/rmass</a> .<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>This was hopefully not too confusing (?)!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 04.08.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Chip
Akins:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Albrecht and Chandra<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you don’t mind I would like to join
this discussion on the nature of light.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This has been an area of study for me,
also for decades, as Chandra has mentioned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But still, it is not so easy to resolve
this issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In this discussion group, many have
made good points on both sides of this discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <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+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Roychoudhuri, Chandra<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 03, 2017 5:09 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <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">Albrecht: Let me start by
quoting your concluding statement:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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:</span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></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></span><o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">Sorry, Albrecht, for such
a long reply.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:13.5pt">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>
<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> Thursday, August 03, 2017 2:30 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">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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:13.5pt">Which kind of changes do
you expect?</span><br>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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: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="59">
<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
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="474">
<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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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>
<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>