<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 style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Dear Andrew,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Most things in nuclear physics have been interpreted in terms of their quark structure. Deep inelastic scattering have shown nucleons have structures that have angular momentum and are smaller than the nucleons. That plus their theories allows them to continue quark with quark theory, even though the quarks don’t have sufficient angular momentum to explain all the nucleon angular momentum. Those structures they observe are in my model. With everything being electromagnetic in nature, getting an electric field to penetrate it will be difficult anyway. </div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Re the charge distribution of a neutron. I am glad they have found the outer negative ring - it should be very weak, total charge less than about - 0.1e and spreading out to a radius of about 5 fm (give or take a bit). As for a neutron having a negative central core, the charge measured charge distribution is what I call a first approximation. A second approximation, i.e., measurement in greater detail, suggests there would be a weak detectable negative charge of dimensions about 0.01 fm (give or take a bit - depending upon the limits of measurement), at the centre of the neutron’s central core, which has maximum positive charge at about 0.105 fm radius. Lets wait and see how accurate their measurements are.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Regarding Norman D Cook’s book, I bought a copy of his first book and used it extensively in my research into nuclear physics. I haven’t seen his second book. My models don’t relate to any of the lattice structures he used in his first book. My model is layers of face centered hexagonal close packed structures with specific positions for protons and neutrons. </div> <div><br></div>Regarding the link you sent. Interpretations of the size of the nucleons comes from using the quark model and thinking of them as solid spheres. They are neither. It is no surprise their models don’t work. It is summed up by the statement: "<font color="#333333" face="Open Sans, Arial, sans-serif" size="4"> It violates existing theories of nuclear physics”. </font>When that occurs, it should be time for a new theory. Nucleons slightly change their shape inside a nucleus. My main comment is “No wonder they are going nowhere fast!” Nothing I read in that article seems in disagreement with my model. And remember, particles under the rotating photon model come equipped with inbuilt special relativity corrections with velocity. Even if theoreticians finish up getting some kind of modification that gets quark theory to fit observed experimental data, the best they can do is mathematically superimpose the special relativity correction onto their work, with no idea of what causes it. <div><br></div><div>Also remember. All you get out of proton/anti-proton annihilation is photons and possibly neutrinos. You don’t get quarks popping out or leaving any other residual signal. Perhaps that suggests that quarks must be made of photons?<br><div><br></div><div>Andrew I would like you and others to realize this is no quirky quarky, high on rhetoric, low on detail, presentation. It is detailed, from the structure and properties of neutrinos and why they are detected within a second or so the light from intra-galactic supernova, right through to relativistic gravity effects. It is higher on matching observation than the standard models. There is still a lot of work that needs doing on this model of the universe. John W is contributing well. It is part of my hope that others may want to join in. A part of my hope is that, if others want to develop new particles and ideas, they give a little thought to some of the finer detail of the universe. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Viv<br><br><p class="airmail_on">On 15 January 2020 at 1:22:06 PM, Andrew Meulenberg (<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com">mules333@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear VIv,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thank you for your quick reply. Your skin effect was not what
I had hoped/expected, although it might somehow be related. My
concept is that the nuclei and nucleons are (super?)conductors. As
such, they will rearrange themselves internally to reduce any
impinging electric field that might seek to penetrate.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Re: The charge distribution curves for the proton and neutron.
The most recent figure that I have seen identifies, in addition to
the outer negative ring, a negative potential at the core of a
neutron. Does that present a problem for your model? Or, would you
suggest that we just wait and see?<br></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br></div>
<div>I had meant to ask this in the earlier email, because I did
not have access to your references. Do any of your nuclear models
relate to the lattice nuclei of Norman Cook which does have
"layered" nucleons?<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-a-section gmail-a-spacing-none">
<h2 class="gmail-a-size-mini gmail-a-spacing-none gmail-a-color-base gmail-s-line-clamp-2" style="margin-left:40px"><span class="gmail-rush-component gmail-s-latency-cf-section"><a class="gmail-a-link-normal gmail-a-text-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/Models-Atomic-Nucleus-Interactive-Software/dp/3540285695/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=norman+cook&qid=1579009314&s=books&sr=1-13">
<font size="2"><span class="gmail-a-size-medium gmail-a-color-base gmail-a-text-normal" dir="auto">Models of the Atomic Nucleus: With Interactive
Software</span></font></a><font size="2"> by Norman D. Cook |
Feb 10, 2006</font></span></h2>
<div class="gmail-a-row gmail-a-size-base gmail-a-color-secondary">
<div class="gmail-sg-row">
<div class="gmail-sg-col-4-of-12 gmail-sg-col-8-of-16 gmail-sg-col-12-of-32 gmail-sg-col-12-of-20 gmail-sg-col-12-of-36 gmail-sg-col gmail-sg-col-12-of-24 gmail-sg-col-12-of-28">
<div class="gmail-sg-col-inner">
<div class="gmail-a-section gmail-a-spacing-none">
<h2 class="gmail-a-size-mini gmail-a-spacing-none gmail-a-color-base gmail-s-line-clamp-2" style="margin-left:40px"><span class="gmail-a-size-base gmail-a-color-secondary gmail-a-text-normal" dir="auto"><a class="gmail-a-link-normal gmail-a-text-normal" href="https://www.amazon.com/Models-Atomic-Nucleus-Unification-Nucleons/dp/1892925125/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=norman+cook&qid=1579055192&s=books&sr=1-6">
<span class="gmail-a-size-medium gmail-a-color-base gmail-a-text-normal" dir="auto"><font size="2">Models of the Atomic Nucleus: Unification
Through a Lattice of Nucleons </font></span></a> <font size="2"><span class="gmail-a-size-base" dir="auto">by</span>
<span class="gmail-a-size-base" dir="auto">Norman D. Cook</span>
<span class="gmail-a-size-base gmail-a-color-secondary" dir="auto">|</span> <span class="gmail-a-size-base gmail-a-color-secondary gmail-a-text-normal" dir="auto">2019</span></font></span></h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>I have not read the recent version (published after he died);
but, if you need it, I may be able to get you an electronic copy of
his earlier book (w/o the software), which I liked.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div>This recent article, link below, refers to 3 items of interest
to me.<br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><a href="https://www.livescience.com/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html?fbclid=IwAR0IlQmBawS5EkgkaXxl9SET0bExL-su9Yt3dETNlsea0G9AfWzLV7-7OHQ" target="_blank">https://www.livescience.com/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html?fbclid=IwAR0IlQmBawS5EkgkaXxl9SET0bExL-su9Yt3dETNlsea0G9AfWzLV7-7OHQ</a></div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><br></div>
<div>The items are based on new results from recent scattering
experiments.<br></div>
<ol>
<li>"... these very strong nuclear forces ... are a bit like
<a href="https://www.livescience.com/38169-electromagnetism.html" target="_blank">electromagnetic fields</a>, except they're strong
force fields." This fits with a relativistic-electron Cb potential
model.<br></li>
<li>"... these force fields ... actually deform the internal
structure of protons, neutrons..." This fits with my model of a
bound electron lowering the net mass energy of a binding
proton.<br></li>
<li>"... 20% of nucleons in a nucleus are bound up in short-range
correlations." and "... about 20% of the nucleons in a
nucleus are ... paired off with other nucleons, interacting in
"short range correlations." This fits with my model of the
stability of neutrons in a nucleus coming from their exchanging a
deep-orbit electron with a proton. However, I would be more exact
in the above expressions, which I feel should start with "At any
given moment ..."</li>
</ol>
<div>More food for thought.</div>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Andrew</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>PS With my preschool twins, I fear that time and
financial limitations will prevent me from attending the workshop.
I will really miss seeing the group and enjoying the excitement of
exchanging all the ideas maturing since the last meeting in San
Diego.<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">_ _ _<br></div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 7:12 PM
Viv Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px">Dear
Andrew,</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px">Glad to
hear from you. </div>
<div><br></div>
The origins of the nuclear "skin" effect is illustrated by the
images in my chapter 3 Brief Summary. The charge distribution
curves for the proton and neutron show their charge extends beyond
2 fm. They were experimentally measured by Hofstadter, Littauer and
others. That charge originates in the plane of rotation. Individual
nucleons in nuclei are aligned in layers. For Z > 3, they form
in multiple layers. Protons have a measured radius of ≈ 0.87 fm.
The “skin” effect is related to the difference between that
measured radius and the extent of the charge. It varies a little
with the structure of the nuclei.
<div><br></div>
<div>It should be noted that whenever nucleon and nuclear
dimensions are measured, the experimental arrangement means they
are only measured “end on”, that is, perpendicular to the charge
distribution.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Hope that helps,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Viv</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>PS Hope you can make it to John W’s Workshop/Conference.<br>
<div><br></div>
<br>
<p>On 15 January 2020 at 12:17:15 AM, Andrew Meulenberg (<a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a>)
wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span>Dear Viv,</span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>Thank you for the link to your website.</span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>Your introductions to chapters 1 & 2 are close
enough to my views that I can send them (via the link) to
interested people instead of trying to write an explanation
myself.</span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>In your Brief Summary (of Chap 5), you mention a nuclear
"skin" effect. Do you explain what you mean in detail in the
chapter? I am proposing something similar to account for the
"negative" energy levels in Dirac's relativistic
bound-electron model for which a filled electron sea has been
proposed. If so, I might be able to reference your
book.<br></span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>Best regards,</span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>Andrew<br></span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
</div>
<span><br></span>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><span>On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at
4:38 AM Viv Robinson <<a href="mailto:viv@universephysics.com" target="_blank">viv@universephysics.com</a>>
wrote:<br></span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div style="margin:0px">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span>Dear Chandra, Grahame, Richard, Albrecht and
all,</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span><br></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span>Chandra it is pleasing to see you still hosting this "Nature
of light and particles" address. Early on the activity and ideas
were freely flowing. A lot of us dropped out because the messages
seemed not to be related to reality as non detected particles were
introduced to explain some “problems in modern science”. These
included rotars, hods, tachyons/super luminal particles, microvita,
and now sprinq univons. To me they seem like “string theory”.
It uses particles too small to ever be detected existing in
dimensions that have never been detected to get results that don’t
match observation. In other words, out of touch in a 3 D
universe.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span><br></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span>Richard, I agree with you that cosmologists don’t have a clue
about what happened before the Big Bang and not much of a clue in
the inflationary period. Grahame, I agree with you that every
aspect of the universe is controlled. The Big Question is “How and
by what”? This is not the time or place to give a complete answer.
So Grahame, at your request for something thought-provoking, I
offer the following. Throughout what I describe I have used the
principle of "know the physical situation involved and use
mathematics to calculate the magnitude of that physical effect". I
use only known physical constants like e, c, h and G, and others
derived from them and known and detected stable particles, photons,
electrons, protons, neutrons and neutrinos. I used variations of
the Williamson/van der Mark electron model for all particles being
composed of toroidal or, as I call it, rotating photons. My
philosophy includes particles create fields. Understand the
particle properties well enough and you can get answers without
needing field equations. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span><br></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span>I would like to acknowledge that I have been in frequent
contact with John Williamson and Martin van der Mark (JW&MvdM)
over the past decade and have benefited from the knowledge they
passed on to me.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span><br></span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span>It is my hypothesis that all matter is composed of rotation
photons. The best experimental proof of that comes from the Large
Hadron Collider and other particle accelerators. Charged particles
are injected into an accelerator and accelerated by the addition of
photons. They are accelerated to high velocities, enough to
increase their mass by many orders of magnitude and slow down their
Internal “clock”, relative to observers. When they are smashed into
targets they generate a variety of short lived particles, all of
which, when everything has died down, decay into electrons,
protons, neutrons, neutrinos and photons. Nothing else stable has
ever been detected. The most obvious reason for that is that
nothing else exists. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<span><br></span></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><span><span style="font-size:12.7273px">Using a model for photons, I suggest that all
particles are composed of photons making two revolutions within
their wavelength, the JW&MvdM model, also developed by others.
Charged particles, protons / electrons, are composed of circularly
polarized photons. Neutral particles, neutron and neutrino, a
composed of plane polarized photons. Einstein’s special relativity
corrections are an automatic consequence of how those particles
move, as are their de Broglie wavelengths. Another SR correction is
that the radius of a </span>rotating<span style="font-size:12.7273px"> photon structure decreases with
velocity according to the standard SR </span>correction. That
is why an electron is detected as a point particle at high energy
but behaves like a particle with Compton radius dimensions at low
velocity.</span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">I get
a reasonable match of the charge distribution and magnetic moment
of the proton and neutron based only on that model and their
masses. The “intrinsic spin” difference between photons and
neutrons is the hbar difference between the circularly polarized
and plane polarized photons from which they are composed. The array
of elementary particles detected comes from the increased velocity
adding mass and slowing down time when accelerated. When they are
stopped, their mass and time (their frequency of rotation) are "out
of synch” with their new time frame. They get rid of the
excess be emitting a series of photons, both rotating and linear.
The rotating photons are particles. They and the original particles
cascade through a series of quasi stable oscillations until they
reach their stable state. Muons and pions are so prevalent because
they are part of the structure of nucleons at rest. All others are
relative transients.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The
structure of protons and neutrons provides the means by which they
bind. With a set of simple rules it is possible to put together a
model of any nucleus of any A and Z and determine its structure and
many of its properties. It answers many unknowns such as why do
nuclei have such a large “skin effect”, why does He4 have the
highest charge density of any nucleus, while it near neighbor has
the lowest of any with higher Z, why are C12 nuclei triangular
shaped, why is Pb208 (or Bi209, if you want), the highest A and Z
stable nuclei, why there are so many isotopes, which ones are the
more stable, along with the mechanism of nuclear binding and a
whole lot more. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The
quantized origins of electron orbits and some of the “peculiar”
quantum behavior are simply properties of the rotating photon
structures. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Having
described the structure and properties of nuclear and
atomic/molecular binding worlds, standard model classical physics
gives a good description of most phenomena up to galaxies and
galaxy clusters, their rotation and some general relativity
gravitational effects excluded. I found that applying Newtons work
to photons, which Einstein acknowledged had mass, the effects
calculable by his field equations can be easily calculated. I get
42.99 arc sec per century for Mercury’s perihelion precession. What
I find amusing is that "general relativity practitioners” either
haven’t read or don’t understand Einstein’s derivation of his field
equations. A read through his papers show he pointed out the
limitations to his calculations and acknowledged that his field
equations were approximations. Exact solutions to approximations
are still approximations. That doesn’t stop relativists from
believing in black holes when Einstein didn’t believe in
them. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The
physics behind Einstein’s gravity was the mass distorted
space-time, producing gravity. It differs from Newton’s inverse
square law by the space-time distortion of redshift, z, to photons.
Classical gravity is F = GMm/r^2. “Relativistic" gravity can
be expressed by F = GMm/[r(1 + z)]^2. That is what gives Mercury
its anomalous precession, which when viewed from Earth is ≈ 42.99
arc sec/century. It is easy to show that photons traveling through
the universe will undergo a gravitational redshift when they have
travelled far enough. The observed redshift astronomers closely see
matches this gravitational redshift. The important feature is that
gravity is weaker than inverse square when redshift is detectable.
It is easy to show that, as distance tends to infinity,
gravitational attraction tends to zero. An infinite steady state
universe won’t collapse. The major feature the Big Bang theory had
in its favor was the belief by Einstein and others that gravity
remained inverse square. When it doesn’t, all the pillars of the
Big Bang theory disappear and an infinite steady state universe
emerges as the only option. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
Richard, I suggest that is the best explanation of why cosmologists
can’t agree on the pre and early Big Bang period. It is difficult
to get a consensus on something that didn’t happen. Grahame,
Chandra, the only reason why such an extensive study can yield good
results is because everything is controlled, and by just one
principle. It doesn’t need any hypothetical undetected particles,
strings, branes, quarks, gluons, tachyons, superluminal or
otherwise, bosons including Higgs but excluding photons, rotars,
univons, dark matter, dark energy and the like to get that
far.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
Albrecht, I agree with your suggestion about the non acceptance of
superluminal travel. In my model of circularly polarized photons,
the photon travels at c in a straight line. The electromagnetic
field spirals around it and therefore could be described as
superluminal. But it is a mathematical point that is spiraling
faster than c, not something physical. That is a minor point
(pardon the pun). Standard model reviewers don’t accept anything
that is not either standard model or complex <span style="font-size:12.7273px">mathematics. </span></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<div style="margin:0px">For those interested, I have put together a
manuscript I have called <b>How to Build a
Universe</b> Beyond the Standard Models. Details can be found
at:-</div>
<div style="margin:0px"><br></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><a href="http://www.universephysics.com/" style="word-break:break-word" target="_blank">www.universephysics.com</a></div>
<div style="margin:0px"><br></div>
<div style="margin:0px">(Grahame, I don’t have your web site
presentation skills.)</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">The
work remains largely unpublished in mainstream or other journals. I
got tired of Reviewer comments that essentially say “It is not
standard model, so we won’t publish it”! However it makes dozens of
predictions that can be tested experimentally (in nuclear, particle
and atomic levels) or by observation (at astronomy and cosmology
levels). Neither is the study complete. I rely on John W for some
equations and have welcomed and acknowledged his input. I
understand many other physicists have similar views and are working
on similar lines.</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">IMHO,
we don’t live in a universe that is fine tuned for life to exist.
We live in one that is inherently stable, where h, G and e can’t
have any different values and c varies between observers but is
always fixed for local observers. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">John W
is organizing a Workshop and Conference for later this year where
it is hoped a group of like minded people would gather to present
ideas and papers founded on three space dimensions and time and
using only observed particles. It is hoped the occasion would
enable the group to "advance the cause” of understanding the
“perpetually evolving universe”. If you are interested in
attending/presenting, you might like to contact him for
further information. </div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
Cheers,</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">
<br></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:12.7273px;margin:0px">Vivian
Robinson</div>
<br style="font-family:"helvetica Neue",helvetica;font-size:13.6364px">
<div style="font-family:"helvetica Neue",helvetica;font-size:13.6364px">
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<p>On 10 January 2020 at 3:01:42 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
(<a href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu" target="_blank">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a>) wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div><span>Grahame:</span>
<div><span>Keep up the good work!</span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span> No human knowledge is the final
knowledge. </span></div>
<div><span><br></span></div>
<div><span>Our Enquiry about the rules, the meanings and the
purposes behind the perpetually evolving universe, must keep
evolving. That is the only “assurance” in our thinking should be
accepted.</span></div>
<div><span>Chandra.<br>
<br></span>
<div dir="ltr"><span>Sent from my iPhone</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><br></span>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>On Jan 10, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Dr
Grahame Blackwell <<a href="mailto:grahame@starweave.com" target="_blank">grahame@starweave.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></span></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span></span>
<div><span><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Dear
All,</font></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Thanks,
Richard, for highlighting a fundamental truism that's central to
our work: either our universe is a product of focused intention, or
it's random. If the latter is true then we may as well all
stop bothering with our research - or anything else, for that
matter: any illusion that we may have that our work, or any of our
activities, are leading in some postive direction, or that we are
in any way masters of our own destiny, is just that - illusion; our
own beings, along with every other aspect of the cosmos, are just
random assemblages of matter/energy following train-tracks
determined by randomly-generated 'rules', supplemented by further
randomness at a quantum level. Anyone who thinks that we have
even the slightest hint of self-determination in such circumstances
is just kidding themselves: the idea that self-determination could
ever be an emergent property of pure randomness is a pipe-dream,
one that collapses at the first hint of objective
analysis.</font></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">The notion
of pure randomness generating a cosmos with constants finely-tuned
to support all the phenomena that we see around (and within) us
also of course necessitates the notion of an infinity of cosmoi,
with an infinity of different combinations of fundamental
constants. I never cease to be baffled by the view that this
is a scientific perspective whilst the concept of an intentional
universe is somehow woo-woo or fanciful.</font></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Let's be
clear, the idea of an intentional universe is not in any way less
credible than that of an infinite number of universes - as I'm sure
William of Ockham would agree. It's definitely not in any way
a 'religious' concept - rather, the 'infinity of random
universes' is surely a prime contender for the title of 'religious
belief'.</font></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div><span><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Planck,
Schr<span><font color="#000000">ö</font></span>dinger and other
pioneers of Quantum Mechanics had no doubts that consciousness is a
founding principle and an active agency underlying the material
world. As my own speculative contribution to this narrative,
I have written a trilogy of science fiction novels based on a
scientific perspective on Relativity that I know various
others in this group subscribe to, extended into the field of what
I refer to as 'Consciousness Science'. This trilogy posits
the idea that the fallacy of c as an absolute speed limit might be
challenged by adding 'applied consciousness' into the mix - and
points to various well-established phenomena as support for that
idea.</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Colleagues may be
interested to see how my trilogy first finds a means to
implement FTL travel and then goes on to use that means to explore
and colonise stars tens of light years away (in time scales
measured in months - reduced to hours for the travellers by
well-explained time dilation effects). A major purpose of
this series of books is to provoke discussion, and deeper thought,
about this whole issue - including the potential for, and possible
nature of, life on exoplanets (stretching the boundaries on the
basis of documented scientific facts).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Details of my
books can be seen at:</font></div>
<div><a href="https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaikandor.com&data=02%7C01%7Cchandra.roychoudhuri%40uconn.edu%7C3a8d28a651d34c5aa9e608d7954edc0d%7C17f1a87e2a254eaab9df9d439034b080%7C0%7C0%7C637142038248697778&sdata=XoYBffiKTsH6UY%2B7eSkijSPG5Hz7RZ9rkPHyB7Hp71U%3D&reserved=0" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">www.vaikandor.com</font></a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">I hope some of you
at least find the topic thought-provoking.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">Grahame</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial" color="#000080">=======</font></div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:mules333@gmail.com" target="_blank">mules333@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________
<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv@universephysics.com
<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
<br>Click here to unsubscribe
<br></a>
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></div></div></body></html>