RE: Spontaneity
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear All,
JM-“Spontaneity enters physics in the form of the reduction of the wave packet which I interpret as a transition from quantum to classical modes.”
KV: I do not know what Kant said. But the above statement is wrong interpretation of quantum mechanics, What happens when you make a measurement and the wave packet is reduced, only the QM superposition is broken. The result is still not classical. In fact in all cases when you statistically average the results of large number of experiments on identically prepared systems the final result is distinctly quantum mechanical and not classical for sure! Debates on interpretation of wave function collapse does not change this distinction between classical and quantum mechanics!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Joseph McCard [mailto:joseph....@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>;
Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; to: georg...@aol.com <georg...@aol.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>;
sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com>
Subject: Spontaneity
All,
[I sent the following, but it has not shown up on this the original thread.]
The following is evidence for my claim, evident in parapsychology, that consciousness connects all of us,and, is evidence for the existence and functioning of the Inner Law of Spontaneity, one of the 4 Inner Laws that govern pattern formation. Willie McLoud, who is not connected to this e-mail list, sent me the following monograph after his last e-mail, one year ago, almost to the day.
I received the following timely monograph and feel obligated to forward it:
VINOD wrote: So when matter undergoes spontaneous decay into energy, this is as per some Laws of nature. The matter has no choice whether to decay or not or to choose the speed of decay. So it has no element of discretion, therefore, it has no free will. A computing system has no free will since it will respond as per the program fed. But you have a free will since it is your free choice whether to respond or not OR how much to respond or when to respond
joe wrote: I agree. There are 4 Inner Laws of the Universe. All work together in a unified manner. Spontaneity, Energy Transformation, Stability, and Growth. Free-will is one of the results of these Laws
Sehgal. From where and how these 4 inner Laws Laws appeared? how do you conceptualize/define spontaneity Vs Free Will? Can you give an example in our mundane life where free will could be the outcome of above 4 Laws?
"CSKP3 (2018) Kant, Noumena, and Quantum Physics June 15, 2018 Willem McLoud:
I mentioned that the problem of reconciling determinism and indeterminism (spontaneity) in quantum physics is now more than one hundred years old and no answer as to how such spontaneity can be conceived of as possible in our understanding of how the world is like (in contrast to its mere logical possibility) has been provided. The main questions that I engaged with are: How is such spontaneity possible and how can it be accommodated in physics as part of our overall conception of the world? My answer is a simple (and I hope an elegant) one: We can effectively delineate two modes of existence in quantum physics, the one being the substratum of the other, namely the quantum and classical modes, governed by two very different principles, namely determinism and spontaneity. Spontaneity enters physics in the form of the reduction of the wave packet which I interpret as a transition from quantum to classical modes.
This unified conceptual picture emerges in the framework of Kant's philosophy that allows for two modes of existence, namely nature and the supersensible realm outside nature, governed by determinism and absolute spontaneity respectively, which I interpret as the classical and quantum modes of existence. I show (I hope convincingly) in the context of my interpretation of the First Critique (and reading the Third Critique consistent with this interpretation), that Kant did not merely allow for the logical possibility, but for the conceivability of absolute spontaneity—both in the First Critique and in his philosophy of science in the Third Critique. As such spontaneity becomes something that could conceivably exist if his Critical metaphysics can be presented, not merely as a metaphysics, but as a scientific hypothesis that finds application in the field of quantum physics.
Kant argues in the First and Third Critiques that such spontaneity can co-exist with determinism in one conceptual framework in the context of his Critical metaphysics. I apply these concepts to the field of quantum physics with one adaptation: I allow that time be
87
combined not only with space but also with that mathematical space which is associated with the quantum mode of existence. This allows me to apply the Kantian concepts also to quantum mechanics where the two modes of existence come together in one description.
Kant’s approach allows us to also bring classical physics (Einstein’s theories) and quantum physics together into one conceptual framework. He laid the basis for this unified picture in the First Critique, where his first two moves formalize an epistemology that he used in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science to establish the philosophical foundations of not merely Newtonian science, but of classical science in general, including Einstein’s theories, as Friedman (2001) has shown. His third move showed how determinism and transcendental freedom can cohere. He reworked these concepts in the Third Critique as part of his philosophy of science that accommodates spontaneity. The First Critique, therefore, provides the groundwork for mathematical science whereas the Third Critique allows us to bring physics, biology and even the life sciences (in the framework of his concept of “reflective” judgment) together in one unified conception or meta-research programme.
At the end of the day, I show that we can achieve much more with Kant’s conceptual framework than he thought possible. I have shown (I hope successfully) that the supersensible realm is confirmed in the quantum realm. I also show that Kant’s “final causality”, which is conceptualized as a spontaneous potentiality in the Third Critique, is realized in the spontaneous reduction of the wave packet. More generally, the ascription of spontaneity (in the context of a Kantian “potential”) to the quantum realm explains non-determination in cases like atomic decay and the EPR experiments. In my interpretation both determinism and spontaneity can be accounted for within the constraints of contemporary physics without having to call upon “action-at-a-distance” or “many worlds”. The most important outcome is that my view explains how such freedom is possible and also how it can be accommodated as part of a unified conception of the world."
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinod,
Perhaps unintentionally you have raised a very intriguing question in modern physics. First, masses of elementary particles are taken as classical quantities, nothing to do with quantum mechanics, So they are measured by measuring energy , momentum and trajectories in electric and magnetic fields, using classical equations of electrodynamics and energy-momentum conservation. All experiments classical (or quantum) have statistical errors(+, -). For electrons these are especially small.
Now, at the present stage of modern physics theory, we cannot calculate masses from first principles. So in quantum mechanics or quantum field theory they are put in by hand in the equations. There are some issues of masses without interactions ( bare masses) and renormalized masses ( with interactions ). But this involves intricate mathematical calculations. The end result is same. Masses are taken as classical experimental quantities. Even though Higgs field is supposed to give masses to electrons and quarks, we cannot calculate absolute values of masses. Perhaps someday, not today. If someone can calculate masses, there is guaranteed Nobel prize!
There was a half crazy theory by Feynman and Wheeler. Their answer to the question, why all electrons look same ( same masses etc.) was that we may be seeing the same electron again and again. The electron may be going back in time and then again going forward in time!! My guess is that they did not take it seriously enough to pursue it further.
Perhaps I have said more than you wanted to know!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 6:47 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>;
Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; to: georg...@aol.com <georg...@aol.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
KV - "The result is still not classical. In fact in all cases when you statistically average the results of large number of experiments on identically prepared systems the final result is distinctly quantum mechanical and not classical for sure!"
Sehgal --If we may measure the mass of an electron at 1000 different places on the Globe and different times, but under the identically prepared system conditions, will it be different in each experiment? If yes, what will be the variation in different results?
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/784be7890e1143fa81fc1283892f8545%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Kushal Shah
There was a half crazy theory by Feynman and Wheeler. Their answer to the question, why all electrons look same ( same masses etc.) was that we may be seeing the same electron again and again. The electron may be going back in time and then again going forward in time!! My guess is that they did not take it seriously enough to pursue it further.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Kushal,
You may find this by googling. I am not sure if this idea was published in scientific journals.
Best .
kashyap
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Kushal Shah
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018, 8:01 PM Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services:
http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CABSgQwq%2BsC3v58yMvGWhrFouoNS6Pnadk2Kjn_uSLYsyauq8zg%40mail.gmail.com.
Kushal Shah
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/0989e8be81f9496f8bd10354f3409b24%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
As I said last time, currently mass (just as charge, magnitude of spin etc.) is taken as classical invariant property of a particle. So when you prepare an electron system say a superposition of two spin eigenstates, both eigenstates have the same mass. There is never a superposition of different mass values. The same classical mass is used in all equations. Situation may change when we have capability of calculating masses. But currently, these are called super selection rules. Similarly, when you talk about superposition of spin states, these are superpositions of components, not the magnitude. There is never a superposition of say a boson and a fermion. Mass, charge and magnitude of spin define a particle.
Bare mass before interaction in most cases is infinite and not measurable. Electron never knows how is life without an electric field! That is the trick that is used in the renormalization program to absorb infinities and get final finite result. Many people say it is mathematically not justified. But as they say proof of pudding is in eating. The resulting values are in fantastic agreement with the experiments. So critics are silenced!!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 8:33 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>;
Dan Ghiocel <d...@ghiocel.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Kashyapji,
Thanks.
No, you have not mentioned more than what I wanted to know. On the contrary, you have made me aware of many new things with which I was not apprised earlier.
I understand and agree that mass of an electron is a classical quantity. But my points are
i) Before measurement, the election exit in state of superposition which is a mathematical expression of many eigen states of the electron.
ii) With measurement of the mass of the electron, superposition shall collapse, one of the eigen values of mass shall appear in the classical world as the mass of the electron for that particular measurement.
iii) so when we shall make 1000 different measurement at different places and times but in the similarly prepared systems, each time different eigen value of mass should appear as mass.
If it is above, this will be an empirical verification of superposition and eigen states with each having different values. Then we can also have an empirical verification of the extent of variation in the eigenvalues.
But what I understand from your message that the measurement of the mass of electron above way from Ist principles , what you call bare mass, is not possible in press physics. If I have understood your message correctly, it is some classical value of mass
which is put in hand in the renormalized equations of electron with interaction in order to satisfy those equations.
My Ist question to you - if I am correct in my above understanding of the methodology for estimating the mass of the election?
Second question -- on what basis, we take bare mass and renormalized mass as same?
Third question -- if it is not possible to measure bare mass of the electron from Ist principles what is the empirical verification for the existences of the state of superposition and different epigenists having different eigenvalues for the physical properties
of an electron?
Regards
Vinod Sehgal
Asingh2384
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Avatar,
Are you saying that all masses arise from ZPF? So are different masses excitations of ZPF?
Best.
kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1643ca28b44-c8d-2ce45%40webjas-vac078.srv.aolmail.net.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
“But QM is based on the hypothesis that the mass of electron is different in different eigen states which all combine mathematically to arrive at some state of superposition.”
This is not right. Classical mass is taken as a given property in all QM equations. No questions asked!! All eigenstates are supposed to have same masses. Energies are usually different but the mass (more precisely rest mass in relativity) is fixed. There is a relativistic relation E^2=c^2*P^2 + M(0)^2*c^4 which is always used, E=energy, P=momentum, M(0) is the rest mass measured in particle’s rest frame. M(0) is usually called mass and is given in tables. Superposed states can have different energies, not different masses. Currently, mass is a specific property of a particle and particles are identified and tabulated as having specific masses. Mass is measured by motion in electric and magnetic fields. There is no quantum mechanical measurement of mass.
The story of bare mass is somewhat subtle. Bare mass is usually infinite and it is pretty much theoretical concept since we cannot observe an electron without its electric field. One way to visualize is , as Avtar also pointed out, is that electrostatic energy e^2/r becomes infinite for r = 0. All these factors are supposed to give infinite answers in calculations before renormalization. Renormalization is adjusted to give measured mass given in tables! Currently we cannot calculate masses.
The story of Higgs field is even more subtle. It is believed that all particle leptons ( particles in the class of electrons) and quarks had zero mass M(0) to start with even after they acquired charges. Interaction with Higgs field gave rise to different masses. Why, is still an unanswered question! Photon remained as zero mass particle.
I trust this will finally clarify puzzle of masses. As I said there is a guaranteed Nobel prize if someone can calculate masses of elementary particles!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 12:38 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Siegfried Bleher
<sbl...@msn.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Thanks Kashyapji for your further clarification and elaboration. A few more queries.
You had indicated that an electron has some fixed absolute mass due to endowment from Higgs Field. However since an electron can't stay without an electric field, it has an infinite mass. So is is it like this way that an electron has some fixed absolute
mass but due to its association with an electric field, it has infinite mass? But infinite is an undefined and unspecified quantity. So even if an electron is associated with an electric field all the times, how can it have an infinite mass?
I understand that for all practical purposes, the mass of an electron is taken classical invariant in all the eigen states. But QM is based on the hypothesis that the mass of electron is different in different eigen states which all combine mathematically
to arrive at some state of superposition. On measurement of the mass of the electron in the classical world, superposition collapses and one of the eigen values of mass appears as the mass of electron in the classical world as its classical mass for that particular
measurement. Am I right in interpretation of this key hypothesis of QM? If it is so, is there no empirical hypothesis of QM? If Yes, how?
Regards
Vinod Sehgal
Asingh2384
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
I have repeatedly mentioned that mass, charge and magnitude of spin are defining properties of elementary particles. They can be measured and the particles with different masses, charges etc. are distinguishable. There is no QM superposition. Period. Please read my e-mails carefully. If other physicists on this group say differently, I will argue with them! If tomorrow evidence shows something different, we will drop this idea at a moment’s notice. We are taught in science to be flexible about all ideas. We do not believe in something only because it is written in books! The whole formalism of modern physics , Born rule, superposition etc. have been checked by experiments hundreds of times. Please read a book on modern physics when you have time.
About consciousness you have a point. Science has not succeeded as yet to produce a believable model of consciousness. That is why I am willing to patiently hear ideas floated around by Rishis thousands of years back. I would not be so patient if they said something in contradiction with firmly established ideas of modern physics about matter. As I have remarked in my article, on philosophical level, ideas of eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are astonishingly close to modern physics. But we should be willing to let scientists try different ideas on consciousness. That is the scientific spirit. Do not reject a hypothesis before verifying its consequences!
Hopefully, these arguments will be satisfactory to you.
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 12:45 AM
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Dr. Paul /Kashyap/A S Singh,
If there is so much vagueness, confusion and controversy on understanding the nature of an electron by Physicists, do you think they can understand consciousness? I am not the hopeful at all.
Anyhow, nevertheless the above, if the mass of an electron is a constant like Planck constant or speed of light, what is the meaning of the key hypothesis of QM that in the quantum realm an electron exist in the state of superposition as composed from the mathematical
addition of different eigen values. Furthermore, what is the meaning of the Born Rule stating that on measurement, superposition collapses and one of the eigen value of the mass appears as the mass of the electron in the classical world. Has there been any
empirical verification of this key hypothesis of QM and Born Rule or are these just hypothesis? I expect a clear response from you or other Physicists Kashyap/A Singh/Siegfried Bleher on these issues
Vinod Sehgal
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since I do know something about this issue in QED, I feel a duty to try to help clarify.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 8:33 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kashyapji,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> No, you have not mentioned more than what I wanted to know. On the contrary, you have made me aware of many new things with which I was not apprised earlier.
>>
>> I understand and agree that mass of an electron is a classical quantity. But my points are
>>
>> i) Before measurement, the election exit in state of superposition which is a mathematical expression of many eigen states of the electron.
>
>
> In truth, the mass of the electron is not REALLY something we think of as a measurement very much, in actual QED work. The mass of an electron is treated as a PARAMETER, like the speed of light or Planck's constant. We DO try to assess the values of all the
basic parameters of nature through many types of experiment (including the older simple classical efforts to "just measure" in many different ways), but it is not like the specific measurement of a specific particle. Probably there is a whole cottage industry
on how to get more precision in that
> "measurement," but there are reasons why I have not bothered to read it. The literature on the RADIUS of the electron is more interesting, however, and slightly less obscure.
>
>>
>> ii) With measurement of the mass of the electron, superposition shall collapse, one of the eigen values of mass shall appear in the classical world as the mass of the electron for that particular measurement.
>>
>> iii) so when we shall make 1000 different measurement at different places and times but in the similarly prepared systems, each time different eigen value of mass should appear as mass.
>>
>> If it is above, this will be an empirical verification of superposition and eigen states with each having different values. Then we can also have an empirical verification of the extent of variation in the eigenvalues.
>>
>> But what I understand from your message that the measurement of the mass of electron above way from Ist principles , what you call bare mass, is not possible in press physics. If I have understood your message correctly, it is some classical value of mass
which is put in hand in the renormalized equations of electron with interaction in order to satisfy those equations.
>>
>> My Ist question to you - if I am correct in my above understanding of the methodology for estimating the mass of the election?
>>
>> Second question -- on what basis, we take bare mass and renormalized mass as same?
>
> They certainly are NOT the same.
> There is some important "dirty linen hidden in the closet" here, which makes me feel that quantum field theory as we know it today is probably not the last word in physics.
> For those seeking mathematical clarity and precision, even today, the best statement of quantum electrodynamics in English may well be the little old book by Mandl (NOT Mandl and Shaw), Introduction to Quantum Field Theory.
> In essence, the bare mass of the electron in QED is INFINITY. The electric field of the electron repels itself, resulting in an inescapable conclusion that the bare mass-energy of the electron is INFINITE, if the radius is zero and nothing else is changing
it.
> To make the numbers work, QED assumes a "mass renormalization" (and a couple of other tweaks). In essence, it assumes that there is an infinite NEGATIVE mass-energy located exactly at the point in the center of the electron.
> δM. Some people say "Oh, it's not really there. it's just what we have to assume to get predictions." Some people ask what that infinite energy located at a point does to the gravitational field. δM plus the bare mass equals the physical mass; it's a bit
like saying "infinity minus infinity equals whatever we want it to be, so lets measure the physical mass, and call it whatever we want it to be."
> From the viewpoint of mathematics, there is an obvious way to fix this problem, with a better model. One can model the electron NOT as a point particle, but as a whirlpool of force with a nonzero radius.
> As what physicists call a "soliton." In the models I have looked at, the APPARENT radius of the electric field is still zero (to the highest precision we can measure) but OTHER measures of the radius are more like 3 femtometers,
> such that the total energy at any point is never negative, and no renormalization is needed. I actually had some hope of working with Bhakti Muni on this kind of mathematics, but before we replace today's QED it seems we would have to fix it,
> given the wild psychologies in play in our world today. In fact, I worry more and more about the potential for abuse even of the most innocuous new science and technology.
> Best regards,
> Paul
>
>>
>> Third question -- if it is not possible to measure bare mass of the electron from Ist principles what is the empirical verification for the existences of the state of superposition and different epigenists having different eigenvalues for the physical properties
of an electron?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vinod Sehgal
>>
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Avtar,
I agree with you that dark matter, dark energy are unresolved issues for modern physics. I do not have an answer for that. However I disagree with your fallacy 1. There is no conflict of idea of zero mass photon having finite energy with relativity.
As you know,
E= m(0)c^2/Sqrt (1.- v^2/c^2).
As m(0)-> 0, and v-> c, the ratio can approach a finite limit according to elementary calculus. Then E= hf = hc /wavelength is perfectly consistent, as used in analysis of thousands of experiments. If v for photons is not c , it is in disagreement with not only modern physics, but also in contradiction with well- established Maxwell’s equations. Your model will have to answer that criticism also.
Your attempt to include consciousness in physics is laudable. However if it is in conflict with well-established physics, personally, I would be very hesitant , not that such attempts should be put down.
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: Asingh2384 [mailto:asing...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 11:28 AM
To: paul....@gmail.com; vinodse...@gmail.com
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; skl...@berkeley.edu; sbl...@msn.com; rw.b...@yahoo.com; rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; murty...@yahoo.com; sastr...@gmail.com; georg...@aol.com; alexh...@gmail.com; alfredo...@gmail.com; wh...@csmind.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Hi Paul and All:
There are big gaps and internal inconsistencies (in spite of experimental evidence) in the following widely-accepted assumptions (fallacies) that lead to the ABSURD- 96% missing (dark energy and dark matter) universe:
1. Fallacy 1: Photon rest mass is zero. If this were true, photon would never act as a particle when it hits a screen and it would violate the wave-particle complimentarity that is the foundation of QM. Further, zero mass but non-zero wave-energy violates relativity as well. Similarly, zero mass but no-zero momentum also violates fundamental definition of momentum that is true for majority of fundamental particles.
2. Fallacy 2: Big bang theory paralyzed by singularities and unresolved paradoxes of dark energy, dark matter, cosmological constant or vacuum energy magnitude, parallel universe, time paradox (no evidence of a universal clock), measurement paradox, quantum gravity, absence of anti-matter in the same amount as matter (fallacy of the net energy of the universe is zero) and more. BB theory has misled humanity to dogmatically (96% missing universe) believe that the universe is 14 billion year old and would disappear into the oblivion in future.
The evidence that the above are real fallacies is established by URM that is vindicated by the empirical observations of the universe as well as resolves the key paradoxes listed above. Such vindication is not just fortuitous but founded in the completeness of the missing physics of spontaneity (cosmic consciousness that is much beyond the neuro-biological consciousness) missing from the current theories GR, QM, QED, standard model, Maxwell, string theories etc.
Best Regards
Avtar
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Siegfried Bleher
<sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>;
Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 27, 2018 7:28 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:45 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Paul /Kashyap/A S Singh,
If there is so much vagueness, confusion and controversy on understanding the nature of an electron by Physicists, do you think they can understand consciousness? I am not the hopeful at all.
My talk on consciousness at Tucson included less than two slides on physics. Science is not a subset of physics, nor am I.
Anyhow, nevertheless the above, if the mass of an electron is a constant like Planck constant or speed of light, what is the meaning of the key hypothesis of QM that in the quantum realm an electron exist in the state of superposition as composed from the mathematical addition of different eigen values.
In QED, the rest and bare masses of the photon are also a constant, zero.
Nevertheless, superpositions of photons and electrons have been observed. The phenomenon of superposition is not really about mass.
Furthermore, what is the meaning of the Born Rule stating that on measurement, superposition collapses and one of the eigen value of the mass appears as the mass of the electron in the classical world. Has there been any empirical verification of this key hypothesis of QM and Born Rule or are these just hypothesis? I expect a clear response from you or other Physicists Kashyap/A Singh/Siegfried Bleher on these issues
Physics is not a dogmatic religion with one fixed, ancient book of rules. When physicists start to behave that way, they betray science itself.
There are many different theories about the Born rule to be found in physics and in aligned branches of science.
For the foundations of physics, the most standard paradigm for the Born rule is the collapse of the wave function which
occurs when one of the photons of an entangled pair reached a polarizer, or reaches a measurement apparatus consisting of a polarizer, a detector and a human eyeball.
The polarizer does not collapse the wave function to an eigenvalue of mass. It collapses it to an eigenfunction of the linear polarization. The mass is zero. Mass does not vary from photon to photon (at least not in free space).
(Within a solid object, the word "photon:" actually starts to become ambiguus, as there are commonly correlated vibrations which are actually pseudoparticles, like bound states of a photon and other things.)
However, linear polarization does vary a lot, and the polarization of a partiucular photon can be "measured" in this way.
Best of luck,
Paul
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
Yes. The sentence “There is no QM superposition.” as read by itself is obviously wrong. It has to be read in the context of the previous sentence. I meant there is no superposition of particles with different masses, different charges or spins (magnitudes). I was getting tired of repeating the same argument again and again. I am human after all!!! So (1) and (2) are perfectly consistent. There is superposition of states of the same particle (same mass, charge, magnitude of spin, defining properties of particle) e.g. electrons with component spin + ½ and – ½. Currently such superpositions are believed to be a great property of QM system in contrast with classical systems. There will never be a superposition of Kashyap, Vinod and Ram!! If Paul has heard about superpositions of photons and electrons then I have to discuss with him separately at a technical level.
Because of wave –particle duality some time we use word wave and sometime particle. It is clear from the context what one is talking about. It is not worth debating!
Best regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:14 AM
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384
<asing...@aol.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Kashyap -
I have repeatedly mentioned that mass, charge and magnitude of spin are defining properties of elementary particles. They can be measured and the particles with different masses, charges etc. are distinguishable. (1) There is no QM superposition. Period. Please read my e-mails carefully. If other physicists on this group say differently, I will argue with them! If tomorrow evidence shows something different, we will drop this idea at a moment’s notice. We are taught in science to be flexible about all ideas. We do not believe in something only because it is written in books! The whole formalism of modern physics , (2) Born rule, superposition etc. have been checked by experiments hundreds of times. Please read a book on modern physics when you have time.
About consciousness you have a point. Science has not succeeded as yet to produce a believable model of consciousness. That is why I am willing to patiently hear ideas floated around by Rishis thousands of years back. I would not be so patient if they said something in contradiction with firmly established ideas of modern physics about matter. As I have remarked in my article, on philosophical level, ideas of eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are astonishingly close to modern physics. But we should be willing to let scientists try different ideas on consciousness. That is the scientific spirit. Do not reject a hypothesis before verifying its consequences!
Hopefully, these arguments will be satisfactory to you.
Sehgal -- Please check if you are consistent in your two sentences (1) and (2) as highlighted in red font text above in your message?
Paul -
Nevertheless, superpositions of photons and electrons have been observed. The phenomenon of superposition is not really about mass.
Sehgal _ If superposition of electrons is not about mass and other properties like charge and spin, then it is to what superposition pertains to? I understand that superposition of an electron means a mathematical aggregation of the different states of an electron, with each state called eigenstate and with different values of mass, charge, and spin in different eigenstates. Am I wrong in this understanding of the term superposition?
Here let me clarify that by above meaning of superposition, I mean different states of AN electron, as existing before measurement and the superposition of TWO entangled electrons.
SEHGAL _ Furthermore, what is the meaning of the Born Rule stating that on measurement, superposition collapses and one of the eigen value of the mass appears as the mass of the electron in the classical world. Has there been any empirical verification of this key hypothesis of QM and Born Rule or are these just hypothesis? I expect a clear response from you or other Physicists Kashyap/A Singh/Siegfried Bleher on these issues
Physics is not a dogmatic religion with one fixed, ancient book of rules. When physicists start to behave that way, they betray science itself.
There are many different theories about the Born rule to be found in physics and in aligned branches of science.
For the foundations of physics, the most standard paradigm for the Born rule is the collapse of the wave function which
occurs when one of the photons of an entangled pair reached a polarizer, or reaches a measurement apparatus consisting of a polarizer, a detector and a human eyeball.
The polarizer does not collapse the wave function to an eigenvalue of mass. It collapses it to an eigenfunction of the linear polarization. The mass is zero. Mass does not vary from photon to photon (at least not in free space).
(Within a solid object, the word "photon:" actually starts to become ambiguus, as there are commonly correlated vibrations which are actually pseudoparticles, like bound states of a photon and other things.)
However, linear polarization does vary a lot, and the polarization of a partiucular photon can be "measured" in this way.
Sehgal -- I was not referring to any version of Born Rule as applicable to a PAIR of ENTANGLED PHOTONS. I was referring to the popular mainstream version of Born Rule wherein, on the measurement of any of the properties say the mass of a particle like an electron, it is the value of the mass as present in any of its eigenstates. that will appear as the classical mass in the classical world
.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:58 AM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
When we discuss fundamental issues like mass and size of electron I think it is a mistake to go to QED where electrons are point particles. I strongly recommend going to something like string or M theory
If you try to build an electronic or photonic system today by avoiding any use of QED and relying solely on strong theory, good luck.
I have several times explained why I doubt that QED is the exact ultimate truth, and how I would like to replace the point particle assumption, EVENTUALLY. But we don't get to design the universe. Our task in science,at least, is to make
progress one real step at a time, and there are things we need to resolve with QED before we can even begin to make proper use of PDE kinds of theories, something which Avtar, Einstein and I all have generally regarded as more promising than superstring theory in the end anyway.
where the present main action in theoretical physics is located.
There are certainly a lot of superstring centers, just as there were lots of hydrogen economy centers about ten years ago. But probably I should leave the dfiscussion of such widespread issues to others; for example, consider:
Best of luck,
Paul
Asingh2384
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Avtar,
I briefly looked at your paper. I will come back to it again. My preliminary impression is that even if you take mass of photon to be non-zero like 10(-54) kg as consistent with experiments, it will produce an extremely small change in velocity of photon from c. This will make a very tiny change in Maxwell’s equations or modern physics theories, may not be even noticeable experimentally. As you know very well that there are always +, - errors in the experiments. When we say zero it is always within these errors. Your theory of speed o to c, for photons requires much more drastic change in mass, perhaps in some cases exceeding electron mass. What do you think?
Best Regards.
Kashyap
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/16442259675-c92-20fed%40webjas-vaa100.srv.aolmail.net.
Avtar
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/0817e0e34de14fb49a98d433227c256c%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
Foundational questions are interesting, but sometime there is no answer as to why! That is the way it is!! Wave particle duality is a basic observational phenomena of nature. All peculiarities of QM , uncertainty pr. probabilistic, subjective aspect of QM etc. arise from it. Uncertainty pr. is the basic principle of QM. There is no QM without it. All this makes QM different from classical physics. It is like asking in Newton’s laws why F=ma and not mv. Actually according to Aristotle F was like mv. He used different words but he meant that. It did not work. So Newton said F=ma. If we find uncertainty pr. implausible, it is because our intuition is based on everyday phenomena which are classical. We never know how it is to be an atom or electron!!
The two variables in uncertainty pr. refer to the two aspects of nature. In Delta(p) x Delta (x)>= hbar, p is related to wavelength of wave, x refers to location. p=h/wavelength. Wave is not localized. According to our mental picture of a particle, it has to be localized. So both momentum and position cannot be simultaneously determined with 100 % accuracy. If you do not like this, you will have to rewrite QM. There is no choice.
BTW our description of origin of universe has to start with existence of space and time. Before that it is all speculation. Nobody knows how space time came about. But there is no physics without space time. Thus description of primordial quantum field with fluctuations in energy-momentum is OK. You may be thinking of big bang as before this patch of vacuum appeared. Actually BB is the sudden expansion of the patch. Space time were already there!
Of course I am repeating ideas of conventional modern physics. If someone wants to rewrite all this it is his/her choice. But rewriting 200-300 years of successful physics will not be easy in my opinion!
With Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:58 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail)
<sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt
<wh...@csmind.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
In continuation to the previous email:
Dear Kashyapji,
While commenting on the issue of wide fluctuations in the quantum field due to
uncertainty principle leading to the birth of particles, I drew your attention to two
aspects viz
i) From where the principle of uncertainty appeared? Already commented on the implausibility
of the existence of this principle or any other on their own.
ii) Non-applicability of the principle of uncertainty on a pair of a conjugate variable where either
one or both variables are non-existing. Before BB, in a state of quantum vacuum, there is neither
Energy (E) not Time (T) i.e both the variables of the conjugate pair are non-existent. Therefore,
the principle of uncertainty can't be made applicable to non-existent variables.
Now another aspect of uncertainty came to mind viz
iii) Whether uncertainty is an innate nature of nature or it is created due to observation. If
uncertainty is an induced feature from the observational signal like the one in position-momentum
conjugate variable, there is no meaning of the principle of uncertainty causing wide fluctuations
in the primordial quantum field. Dr. Avtar Singh is of the view that there is no innate uncertainty
in nature but uncertainty appears since we make the observation of the observed from our
Newtonian spacetime which is different than the space-time of the object to be observed.
In view of so many uncertain views on the principle of uncertainty, uncertainty, it can't be said
with certainty as to how and why wide fluctuations in the quantum field were caused.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:15 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vinod: .” A scientist will not say that universe is made like this way.”
KV: This is one of the most popular model of creation of matter. True, not everyone agrees with it. But in my opinion nobody else has any more believable model either. BTW fluctuations of energy in quantum fields happen because of uncertainty principle. Nothing new about it. The fluctuations were huge because confinement in a very small space, again uncertainty principle!
There are a number of models with different time line about creation of matter. Generally it is believed that all particles were created with zero mass. It was OK for strong interactions. Then Higgs field (weak interactions) appeared which gave masses to leptons and quarks. Most of this happened during the 1st second. Low mass nuclei were formed during first three minutes. Sometime during this period atoms were formed. Later, stars, galaxies and life appeared at selected places!
VS: Particles without mass = energy particles
Particles with mass = matter particles
KV: Not so. Because of mass-energy equivalence, this is not a correct way to think.
Probably the smallest neutrino may have mass consistent with zero. But this is under investigation now.
Photons are supposed to have zero mass. According to Avtar, there is a new experimental upper limit of photon mass of 10^ (-54) kg. Mass of electron, the lightest known particle is 9. (10^-31) kg. As far as I am concerned, photon mass is pretty much zero.
What you may be thinking about is that bosons like photons, W and Z bosons (masses 80, 91 Gev distinctly non zero), gluons (again zero mass) and gravitons (zero mass) are carriers of forces. W, Z bosons are responsible for weak force. Exchange of zero mass particles generally give rise to infinite range forces, exchange of non-zero masses to a finite range. That is why electromagnetic and gravitational forces have infinite range. Weak interactions have short range because of high mass of W and Z bosons. The case of gluons is more complicated. All these have nothing to do with energies.
Sehgal: From where the uncertainty principle appeared before the creation thru BBM or otherwise. Any argument that such a principle inherently always existed does not cut the ice since we observe in our mundane life that none of the Law/ principles can exist/manifest unless there is interface with some manifested consciousness. Furthermore, before BB, there was no space and time. Uncertainty principle deals with the complementary pairs of variables like position and momentum or energy and time. But all these pairs of variables should be existing one. Uncertainty principle does not deal with any non-existing variable. Before the BB, time was non- existent. So there is no question of application of uncertainty position to Energy -Time (E-T) complelentary pair. So how and what caused the wide fluctuations in the quantum field?
In a very small space measuring Planks' length, how the entire mass and energy to represent the vast observable universe can be concentrated or accommodated?
____________________________________________________________________________
As you mentioned in the previous message and now also reiterating that particles took birth due to wide fluctuation in a quantum field. Furthermore, a particle takes birth from the excitation of a Field which in turn means placing more energy at certain points in space. So when a quantum field undergoes thru wide fluctuations, it creates some points where energy higher than the average gets concentrated. When the higher concentration of energy at some points gets frozen, this is what will give birth to energy particles. When Higgs Field will couple with these energy particles, the mass will be endowed to these energy particles and matter particles like leptons will be produced. When the matter particles have taken birth, which in turn means the concentration of higher energy at some points and freezing of the same, these particles will assume a new permanent identity as independent of energy and will be free to transit anywhere in space the way there are free electrons. Now comes my question: when particles have taken birth as a consequence of the concentration of more energy at some points, freezing of that energy, these particles getting a free identity of their own and free to travel anywhere in the space, in that case why there should be wave-particle duality? In other words, why particles should behave like a wave sometimes and like a particle on other times like the one in the dual slit experiment?
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:
Avtar, here are a few questions regarding your model:
1. Why should other particles like electron not be able to change their mass if the photon can do so?
2. How much time does it take for the photon to accelerate to near C?
3. If the photon mass is variable, why should all photons be produced with same mass to begin with? We could have photons being produced with different masses, which would then accelerate to different speeds asymptotically?
4. Why should photon mass decay to zero as it accelerates? Why can't it decrease to some non-zero value and stay there?
5. If the photon speed is variable, what is the basis of having an universal constant C? It actually becomes very arbitrary and looks like a forced fit.
6. How would you modify the Maxwell's equations for classical electromagnetic phenomenon as a result of your theory?
7. What experiment would be required to falsify or verify your model? This is necessary if you claim your model to be scientific.
Best,
Kushal.
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 7:41 AM Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Siegfried:
Did you get a chance to read my paper (see attached) I sent with my previous e-mail yesterday addressing the issues you describe. Your comments would be most welcome.
Thanks
Avtar
-----Original Message-----
From: Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com>
To: Avtar <asing...@aol.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2018 2:52 pm
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Avtar and Vinod,
The equations of special relativity are clear, as well as successful (as Kashyap has pointed out). Particles with non-zero rest mass have energy where , and is the particle velocity. If one takes the limit of this equation as both and it is still possible to get a reasonable value for An alternative (and equivalent) equation for the energy of a particle that is more readily applied to photons (or other massless particles is , where is the particle momentum, is the rest mass of the particle, and is the energy of the particle in an inertial frame in which it is at rest. Well, a fundamental postulate of special relativity is that there is no inertial reference frame in which the photon is at rest, so it has no ‘rest mass’. Its energy is nevertheless measurable by its momentum: This momentum, and the corresponding energy can both be measured by how the photon collides with particles that do have mass, like an electron (c.f. Compton effect). Quantum physics gives us an independent value for the energy of the photon, determined by its frequency, where is Planck’s constant, and is the photon frequency. Both these expressions for photon energy and momentum have been validated to as great a precision as we are currently capable of.
Now, the claim that a photon travels at something less than the speed of light begs the question, what is the speed of light if not just how fast light travels? That is, is there an independent way of predicting from first principles that does not require that we know something about light?
I do appreciate the notion of spontaneity that Avtar puts forth as a way of understanding the role of consciousness, in the following sense: just as there is no known continuous temporal process that can be associated with von Neumann’s type II process (‘collapse of wave function’), there is no known temporal process (at least not known to me) to describe the transition from a state where one is not conscious (of ‘an object’) to a state where one is conscious of that object. We may be able to identify neural correlates of the process whereby various features in a visual field bind together (such as, for example, emergence of resonant regions of excitation), and the moments succeeding the moment of awareness, but not of the moment of awareness itself. Linking such spontaneity with measurable physical implications is the challenge.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
From: Avtar <asing...@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 1:31 PM
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Also E=mC**2 becomes meaningless without particle mass.
Regards
Avtar
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2018, at 9:48 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:Kashyap -- It is believed that there were wild fluctuations in the primordial quantum field that gave rise to particles.
Sehgal- Why there were wide fluctuations in the primordial quantum field which gave birth to particles. A scientist will not say that universe is made like this way. Furthermore, at what stage and from where Higgs Field appeared which endowed mass to such particles to create particles with mass? Amy I right in summarizing below that
Particles without mass = energy particles
Particles with mass = matter particles
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Dear Vinod,
As I said before , because of wave –particle duality some time we use word , wave and sometime particle. It is clear from the context what one is talking about. Using modern language of quantum field theory everything is field. If you put in lot of energy in a small region of space as LHC did for production of Higgs particle, you excite the field to produce a short lived particle. This has to do with uncertainty principle. You are putting more energy than average energy of the field. BTW when you produce EM waves in the TV or radio towers, you do the same thing, although classical. The field is there all the time. Right now there is a Higgs field in our houses, we just do not realize its existence! There is no Higgs particle in our houses for sure, because it is not stable particle. It is believed that there were wild fluctuations in the primordial quantum field that gave rise to particles. Universe suddenly expanded. So the state was frozen in. We are living on this borrowed energy! Everybody is familiar with borrowing!! As Guth says it is ultimate free lunch!! Of course eventually we will have to pay for this and our universe will die!!
Why some particles are stable and some unstable is a matter of coupling to weak interactions. Also there should be available particle states to decay into. Conservation of energy, momentum and other quantum conservation principles have to be satisfied for decay to take place.
As to the question, why only some places have particles and some places have vacuum, well , that is how the universe is made. Only some places have life and some places do not. Because of the expansion of universe matter density has gone down quite a bit over 15 billion years.
There are zero mass particles and there is no conflict with relativity. I have discussed this with Avtar. On the one hand he is right that there are outstanding issues with the question of dark matter, dark energy and of course consciousness. People are working hard at these problems. But it seems to me that he wants to rewrite physics of last two –three hundred years or more. Much of it has been very successful, admittedly not all. The evidence is all over your house , work place and society. So as I said before, if there are problems with roof of a house, you do not destroy the whole house. Try to fix the roof. While, I cannot agree with him, I wish him luck. He has taken a tremendous job. He will have to reproduce success of major theories of physics and of course successful explanation of hundreds of experiments, starting with the photo electric light which turns on and off with daylight and dark! This is my opinion. If he can convince the rest of the physics world, then of course I will change my opinion. Scientists should be ready to change their opinion when evidence points against their beliefs and there should not be a censorship for ideas. Right now it is too much revolutionary for me to accept.
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 8:44 AM
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>; Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Paul/Kashyap/Singh/Siegfried,
I find a quite worth in Avtar;s convincing argument that if a photon has no non-zero mass, why
it should behave like a particle though this finds no agreement with present mainstream's
interpretation. But at the same time, this opens a new topic for discussion and logical
deliberations viz what is that which makes a particle as a particle. The popular belief running
amongst scientists has been that a particle is an excited mode of a Field. Here many questions
arises on this belief viz
i) Why should a Field get excited at all to give birth to particles? In other words, what is the
mechanism which leads to the excitation of a Field?
ii) We find that material phenomenal objects exist at some places in the universe only and
balance large part of space empty. Otherwise, also free particles, free of any phenomenal object,
exist at some places only It means particles exist at certain places of the universe only with vast
space either empty or filled with the Field.
.
This, in turn, means that Field appeared into the excited modes at some specific points only.
As is normally understood, a Field, an E. M. Field in the present case, has a ubiquitous
presence but the presence of particles ( or excited modes of Field) is at some specific points in
space only. So an obvious question arises " Why the Field assumes the excited modes at
some specific points in space only and what makes it choose such points?
iii) It is understood that mass to the particles is endowed by Higgs Field/. What is the interface
of Higgs Field in endowing mass to a particle at the stage when it assumes an excited mode to
give birth to particles ( with or without mass)?
Above issues have been roaming in my mind for some time and I had been thinking to raise
these issues before some Physicists. So now with Avtar's comments, I got this opportunity.
I remember that a few months ago, Kashyap had given his views on above issues. But those views
could not provide me with complete clarity and conviction. It is, therefore, now I am raising
these issues from a new perspective of Avtar's comments.
Now I request Dr. Paul, Kashyap, Avtar, Siegfried, all Physicists, to provide their considered
but clear opinion on the above issues
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Paul and All:
There are big gaps and internal inconsistencies (in spite of experimental evidence) in the following widely-accepted assumptions (fallacies) that lead to the ABSURD- 96% missing (dark energy and dark matter) universe:
1. Fallacy 1: Photon rest mass is zero. If this were true, photon would never act as a particle when it hits a screen and it would violate the wave-particle complimentarity that is the foundation of QM. Further, zero mass but non-zero wave-energy violates relativity as well. Similarly, zero mass but no-zero momentum also violates fundamental definition of momentum that is true for majority of fundamental particles.
Are these two sentences offered to us as "proof" that QED does not work?
Or that the many studies mapping the distribution of dark matter in our cosmos should just be thrown out, and replaced by essays on moola prakoola with maps of moola prakoola across the cosmos?
QED gives perfectly consistent recipes for prediction photoelectric detection rates as you allude to, even assuming that the rest mass of the photon is zero. Perhaps I should apologize that when referring to the basic bare mass and renormalized rest mass of the electron, what Vinod was alluding to, I did not add an essay on kinetic energy, but rest assured, QED does account for kinetic energy.
2. Fallacy 2: Big bang theory paralyzed by singularities and unresolved paradoxes of dark energy, dark matter, cosmological constant or vacuum energy magnitude, parallel universe, time paradox (no evidence of a universal clock), measurement paradox, quantum gravity, absence of anti-matter in the same amount as matter (fallacy of the net energy of the universe is zero) and more. BB theory has misled humanity to dogmatically (96% missing universe) believe that the universe is 14 billion year old and would disappear into the oblivion in future.
Fallacy 2 of what you sent: I did not even MENTION Big Bang theory is my response to Vinod. There do exist efforts to do darm =mater Big Bang maps, but the standard current data-driven maps of where the dark matter is do not depend on the Big Bang assumption.
To attack what I sent Vinod based on your feelings about the Big Bang is a really gross exercise in false characterization of other people's views.
The evidence that the above are real fallacies is established by URM
Let's face it, URM itself is very far from established. You would convince more people by relying on the Book of Samuel as your starting point for reasoning.
You are proposing to use it to resolve nonexistent paradoxes which depend on mischaracterizatoin of where things are.
Asingh2384
Keywords
Wave particle duality, Relativity, Uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics, Spontaneous decay
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 29, 2018 11:24 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Kashyapi,
Wave -particle duality could be a real feature of nature as evidenced by the empirical observational evidence. But this remains mysterious since science is unable to decipher " Why and how" of duality.
Secondly, as elaborated jn my previous message the duality is not in compatible with the postulate of creation of particles by wide fluctuations in the quantum field.
Vinod Sehgal
Asingh2384
Dear Avtar and Vinod,The equations of special relativity are clear, as well as successful (as Kashyap has pointed out). Particles with non-zero rest mass have energywhere
, and
is the particle velocity. If one takes the limit of this equation as both
and
it is still possible to get a reasonable value for
An alternative (and equivalent) equation for the energy of a particle that is more readily applied to photons (or other massless particles is
, where
is the particle momentum,
is the rest mass of the particle, and
is the energy of the particle in an inertial frame in which it is at rest. Well, a fundamental postulate of special relativity is that there is no inertial reference frame in which the photon is at rest, so it has no ‘rest mass’. Its energy is nevertheless measurable by its momentum:
This momentum, and the corresponding energy can both be measured by how the photon collides with particles that do have mass, like an electron (c.f. Compton effect). Quantum physics gives us an independent value for the energy of the photon, determined by its frequency,
where
is Planck’s constant, and
is the photon frequency. Both these expressions for photon energy and momentum have been validated to as great a precision as we are currently capable of.
Now, the claim that a photon travels at something less than the speed of light begs the question, what is the speed of light if not just how fast light travels? That is, is there an independent way of predictingfrom first principles that does not require that we know something about light?
Kushal Shah
1. Why should other particles like electron not be able to change their mass if the photon can do so?Avtar: All masses including electrons as well as the universe follow the law of spontaneous mass-energy equivalence (E=mC^2). The empirical evidence of this is that an electron exhibits wave-particle behavior.
2. How much time does it take for the photon to accelerate to near C?Avtar: Mass-energy equivalence or wave-particle complementarity , like any other universal law, is spontaneous or instantaneous without any time delay.
3. If the photon mass is variable, why should all photons be produced with same mass to begin with? We could have photons being produced with different masses, which would then accelerate to different speeds asymptotically?Avtar: Photon rest mass (at V=0, at the point of emission and absorption) is fixed and could be different for different photons (different frequency). When it travels thru empty space, its mass spontaneously transforms to expansive kinetic energy. URM predicts the asymptotic speed V=C irrespective of the rest mass of the photon or the universe.
5. If the photon speed is variable, what is the basis of having an universal constant C? It actually becomes very arbitrary and looks like a forced fit.Avtar: C is mislabeled as the speed of light. Cis a fundamental constant of mass-energy conservation as per the equivalence principle (E=mC^2). This is empirically proven by Michelson–Morley experiment experiments.
6. How would you modify the Maxwell's equations for classical electromagnetic phenomenon as a result of your theory?Avtar: Maxwell’s equations are synchronous with URM at V=C wherein mass dilates to zero. However, Maxwell theory is incomplete (not wrong) and does not address the universal physical reality at V<C. This deficiency leads to the missing 96 % (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and unresolved paradoxes/inconsistencies in the current theories.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Avtar,
There is e-print library in Cornell university where researchers send their new e-prints. Type arxiv.org in google to get contact address . Once they accept it then at least there will be some public avenue where interested people look for it. Then you can try regular physics journals.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Asingh2384 [mailto:asing...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 7:04 PM
To: paul....@gmail.com; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; skl...@berkeley.edu
Subject: Fwd: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Hi Paul/Kashyap/Stan:
I would appreciate it very much if you could please suggest an appropriate journal for publishing these two papers that I sent the abstracts in my earlier e-mail below.
Kushal Shah
1. Why should other particles like electron not be able to change their mass if the photon can do so?Avtar: All masses including electrons as well as the universe follow the law of spontaneous mass-energy equivalence (E=mC^2). The empirical evidence of this is that an electron exhibits wave-particle behavior.It's true that fundamental particles are governed by E=mc^2, but the mass of a fundamental particle is a constant as explained earlier by Kashyap. So in your model, do you allow for all particles to have varying masses. If yes, what are the resulting effects? If not, why?
Avtar: As a particle’s mass converts to energy, it acts as wave and vice versa. Total energy remains constant at E= M0 C^2, where M0 is the rest mass. Hence particle total mass-energy remains constant.
2. How much time does it take for the photon to accelerate to near C?Avtar: Mass-energy equivalence or wave-particle complementarity , like any other universal law, is spontaneous or instantaneous without any time delay.
If the process is without time delay, then how is it any different from saying that photons are emitted with zero mass and v=c or near c? It won't make any observable difference.
Avtar: Correct, for all practical or measurement purposes.
3. If the photon mass is variable, why should all photons be produced with same mass to begin with? We could have photons being produced with different masses, which would then accelerate to different speeds asymptotically?Avtar: Photon rest mass (at V=0, at the point of emission and absorption) is fixed and could be different for different photons (different frequency). When it travels thru empty space, its mass spontaneously transforms to expansive kinetic energy. URM predicts the asymptotic speed V=C irrespective of the rest mass of the photon or the universe.I think the last sentence is an assumption of the model and not really a prediction.
Avtar: No, C is the limiting or asymptotic velocity that can never be exceeded as predicted by URM. It is not an input or assumption.
5. If the photon speed is variable, what is the basis of having an universal constant C? It actually becomes very arbitrary and looks like a forced fit.Avtar: C is mislabeled as the speed of light. Cis a fundamental constant of mass-energy conservation as per the equivalence principle (E=mC^2). This is empirically proven by Michelson–Morley experiment experiments.So why should you assume the same C to be the asymptotic speed of light? If photon speed could be slightly lower than C, it can be slightly higher than C also.
Avtar: C is not an assumption but a prediction coming out of the URM. V can never be higher than C.
6. How would you modify the Maxwell's equations for classical electromagnetic phenomenon as a result of your theory?Avtar: Maxwell’s equations are synchronous with URM at V=C wherein mass dilates to zero. However, Maxwell theory is incomplete (not wrong) and does not address the universal physical reality at V<C. This deficiency leads to the missing 96 % (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and unresolved paradoxes/inconsistencies in the current theories.
But as you stated above, the process of photon mass conversion is spontaneous and hence Maxwell's equations should be always valid.
Avtar: Yes, Maxwell is good for all practical purposes of measurement but not theoretically complete as it assumes that photon mass is always zero and photon has no rest mass.Best,Avtar
Cc: Ph.D. Sadhu-Sanga Under the Holy Association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>; vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu>; rlpvimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; rw.boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; sastry.bvk <sastr...@gmail.com>; georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; murty_hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; alexhankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; sisir.sisirroy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; whit <wh...@csmind.com>; dradin <dra...@noetic.org>; vvimaldhye <vvima...@gmail.com>; baarsbj <baa...@gmail.com>; ralph.frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 29, 2018 4:32 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Asingh2384
From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
Asingh2384
From: Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: Ph.D. Sadhu-Sanga Under the Holy Association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>; vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu>; rlpvimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; rw.boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; sastry.bvk <sastr...@gmail.com>; georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; murty_hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; alexhankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; sisir.sisirroy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; whit <wh...@csmind.com>; dradin <dra...@noetic.org>; vvimaldhye <vvima...@gmail.com>; baarsbj <baa...@gmail.com>; ralph.frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
A general answer to the question why it is not possible to visually understand wave-particle duality is same as before e.g. for curvature of space among other esoteric ideas of modern physics. To repeat, we are some billion times bigger than the atomic phenomena we are trying to visualize. Our intuition is based on our experiences in everyday world which are distinctly classical. In fact as a Vedantic scholar, you know about “Neti, Neti” . Concept of Brahman just cannot be expressed in words. This is similar and perhaps same fact. Also it is close to the concept of Maya. What you see with your eyes is not the real thing!! A difficult question which no one has answered is why mathematics works in spite of our classical brain and intuition!
Having said this, I have to say that why a thing like table looks solid and stable is well understood in modern physics, for decades, if not for some 100 years. QM played a big role in explaining stability of world. Why all atomic electrons do not collapse to the center is understood because of Pauli principle. Similar arguments explain stability of nuclei, solids and even protons etc. In addition there are some conservation principles in addition to energy-momentum conservation. These say that an electron suddenly cannot disappear into some form of energy like photons in spite of mass- energy equivalence. One interesting thing which physics made clear is that we are made of the same matter-stuff as the table! The reason when you put your hand on the table and it does not sink in, is that there are trillion trillion electrons in your hand repelling trillion trillion electrons in the table! I cannot reproduce the whole of modern physics in this e-mail. There are outstanding problems in modern physics of course, but they are not the ones you are raising.
You have a college degree in physics. So it may be a good idea to pick up some new book on modern physics and go chapter by chapter when you get time. It will explain at least what physicists think about the world. I realize it may not be satisfactory from a philosopher’s point of view! Also Delhi Univ. and IIT have very good physicists. You may want to discuss with some retired physicists ( who have lot of time!!). Nothing can replace a personal one on one discussion.
Anyway, asking for visualization of wave particle duality is quite surprising when you want us to believe in astral bodies and sub Planck world. Concept of wave particle duality is well established physics, the evidence is all over the world while for astral world I have to believe in book accounts of Yogis, not my personal experience. I am not denying Yogis’ experiences though. But for visualization, it is always “ Net Neti”. That is it!!
These debates are interesting . I hope, I have not been very blunt.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:03 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Bernard Baars <baa...@gmail.com>;
Ralph Frost <ralph...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Kashyapji,
Let us try to understand "how" rather "why" of wave-particle duality thru some example.
Suppose you have a material object say a table in your room which is visible as a table only.
As we know that the wood of the table comprises some carbon compounds -- which in turn are composed of atoms/protons/neutrons/electrons etc. For years, the material table is
visible to you as a table only and NOT else. Furthermore, the table is visible at that place only ( and somewhere else) where wood molecules of carbon and Hydrogen are in some bonding state with other molecules. This proves that the place where we observe a table almost permanently for years, the Field has frozen permanently as the particles only. Had there been no presence of permanent particles in the particular place, we could not have seen the table at the place where we see the table. In view of this, we can infer that the place where we see a table, there are permanent particles and there is NO exhibition of the particles as the wave.
One could argue that the place where we see the table, there are actually no particles but it is the fluctuations of some energy ( which effectively means some wave) which are visible as
particles. But my argument is that energy exists at other places also ( where there is no table). Why energy fluctuations at places other than, where there is a table, are visible as particles in form of a table or some other phenomenal object. It means the place, where we see table, there are either permanent particles or some unique characteristics of energy due to which we see a table. If there are permanent particles in the place, where the table is visible, how the particles at that place can behave as a wave? In other words, how such particles can exhibit wave-particle duality? If there are no permanent particles, what are the unique characteristics of the wave at that place only ( characteristics which are not available at places other than where there is the table) due to which we see a table from such characteristics?
So how to understand the "how" of the wave-particle duality? For this, I request all the Physicists like Dr. Paul, Dr. Avtar Singh, Dr. Siegdried, Dr. Kashyap to contribute their bit to have an intuitive understanding of wave-particle duality in physical terms, as far as possible.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Dear Vinodji,
Usually science concentrates more on how rather than why. Why is left to philosophers to worry about!
Duality is perfectly compatible with QM model of origin of universe. When we say particles came out, we do mean dual wave particle system. This is so obvious in physics that people use particle or wave intertchangeably. It is not necessary to use both the words all the time!!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:00 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Kushal Shah <atma...@gmail.com>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Spontaneity
Dear Kashyapi,
Wave -particle duality could be a real feature of nature as evidenced by the empirical observational evidence. But this remains mysterious since science is unable to decipher " Why and how" of duality. Secondly, as elaborated jn my previous message the duality is not in compatible with the postulate of creation of particles by wide fluctuations in the quantum field.
Vinod Sehgal