[General] nature of light particles & theories

Roychoudhuri, Chandra chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Mon Oct 12 09:30:03 PDT 2015 

Hello Everybody:
Not being a theoretician, I stay away from theoretical arguments. But, my outright opinion is that we should discard Special Relativity; in contrast to ride on the shoulders of GR and QM to develop much better theories for future; which again should be discarded and advanced by the next generations; and so on. GR and QM have captured some kernels of ontological reality. But, they should be advanced to deeper levels of ontological realities by constructing newer theories by re-building the very foundational postulates behind the current theories. It must be continued for a long time to come. It is about time to openly learn to get rid of our mental Messiah Complex and move forward to keep on evolving as thinking species.
In many of my papers [Down load paper:  http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/; summarized in the book, “Causal Physics”, CRC, 2014], I have repeatedly underscored that we must be alert about the parameters we use while building an equation regarding their existence as a physical variable involved in the phenomenon we are modeling. The parameters can be primary (leads the interaction process and measurable); it can be secondary (measurable, but exists only in association with the primary parameter); it can be indistinguishable whether it is primary or secondary because of our limited understanding; it can be a tertiary parameter (human logics needs it as a variable based on the current limited knowledge, etc.), etc. A simple example is ν = c/λ and the associated velocity relation c=√(1/εμ). Here I claim that, from the standpoint of functional “INTERACTION PROCESS”, “ν” is the primary parameter (intrinsic oscillation of the source dictates the frequency). But “c” is also a primary parameter given by intrinsic set of properties of nature; we cannot do anything more than complain about that! Whereas, “λ” is a secondary parameter defined by the first two parameter already mentioned.
      However, to measure “c”, we need to introduce another highly functional and CONCEPTUAL parameter, the “time interval”, δt from our daily experience of v= δx/ δt.
      Let us not forget that we can never directly measure the time interval δt, or its CONCEPTUAL big brother, THE “RUNNING TIME”, “t”. Smart humans figured out how to measure both “δt” and “t” using the real physical parameter, “f”, the frequency of diverse kinds of natural oscillators, be it a pendulum or an atomic clock. We smartly set “δt” =(1/f); “f” being a real physical parameter; we are still “grounded” to gather “evidence based” results!! We measure “f”, invert it to get a time interval “δt” and a longer time interval “Δt”~N.“δt”, where N is big number representing so many complete oscillations of the “Pendulum” we use.  Operationally speaking, “Δt” is the closet we can get to the concept of “running time”.
      The running time “t’, not being a real physical parameter of any physical object within our control; we must not dictate nature as to how she ought behave based upon human invented “running time”. The “running time” cannot be “dilated” or “contracted”. However, the physical frequency of any and all “pendulums” can be “dilated” or “contracted” with appropriate changes in the environment of the “pendulum”.
      There is SPACE, defined as “ether”, by most of the physicists who constructed the foundation of classical physics over centuries. Based upon, modern understanding, I have improved upon the “ether” concept to CTF (Complex Tension Field) that accommodates Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) all across the cosmic space. The NIW removes wave-particle duality and most of the non-causal postulates thrown into QM to make it “nobody understand…”. QM is understandable and it has many realities built into it and hence it can now lead to scientific platform to re-build QM as a higher level theory.
      The definition mass “m” is another parameter that must be eliminated from physics, not because it is unreal like the running time, but because we have known for quite some time that “m” (=E/c2) represent energy, not some “substance”. We measure its value out of its inertial behavior when it is forced to move in the presence of some potential gradients. We do not measure the content of the “substance” it holds; rather the kinetic behavior of the enfolded energy as resonant oscillations of the CTF. Kinetic motion (associated with another harmonic oscillation; a de Broglie oscillation rather than de Broglie “Pilot Wave”) adds further additional energy on to its structural (oscillating) energy. I would not call it “Relativistic Energy” as this energy increase happens for all velocities.
      In my personal view point, it is time for us to leave behind the romanticism of hanging on to the successes of the twentieth physics, (albeit being absolutely correct); but, a la Newton, let us boldly ride on the shoulders of the formulators of these theories to move on and allow our knowledge-horizon to expand and allow evolution-given perpetual enquiring minds to keep on evolving. Our job is to build that cultural platform for our next generations to come, instead of focusing on the transient Nobel Prizes; which did not even exist before 1900. But science was steadily maturing staying focused on understanding the interaction processes that give rise to the measurable data for “evidence based science”!  Unfortunately, we now know that “evidences” always bring limited information; they do not provide complete information about anything in nature. Thus, all theories must be iterated on and on!
Sincerely,
Chandra
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44 AM
To: phys at a-giese.de
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories



Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2015 um 15:13 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>, "phys >> Dr. Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
Hi Al,

Hi Albrecht:

AK:  From your comments I can't be sure if we disagree (as it seems your are saying) or not.  Some responses below may get this issue.

I do not see any conflict if the situation with synchronized clocks is obeyed as I explained it in my last mail (see below). Those clock assemblies show dilation, but do not present any logical conflict.

AK: An interval for one party cannot BE (appearances are a different matter!) origianl length (per his clock) and forshortened (per partner's clock) at the same location and termination with one end at the same instant.  Obvious!  Even text books point out that the interval is the same in both frames (per +/- Relativity Principle) and show a hyperbolic isocline intersecting the travelr's world line.  Thus, each for himself agrees on the length, and each for the other agrees on a dilated interval.  Where else does this sort of thing happen?  PERSPECTIVE.  Your argument makes sense only if it is taken that the virtual image (or its equivalent in space-time; where it can't be static as in Classical Optics) is dilated/contracted.  If that's what you mean, we agree.  Otherwise, what the texts say is pure contradiction or science fiction mystery.

When looking at a real situation one has to identify the observed object on the one hand with a clock in the example, and on the other hand the observer with another clock or a sequence of other clocks. If we observe a moving particle (like a muon) in a laboratory, than the muon is represented by one clock in the moving system. In this case the observer is represented by a line of clocks positioned along the path of the muon. Because, if we think in an idealized way, we have first to note the time when the muon starts by looking at the clock which is close to the muon at start time. When the muon decays we have for the decay time to look to the clock which is close to the muon at that moment.

AK: In experiments, NO lifetime measurement is made at all!  The data consists entirely of counting the quanttity of muons at a given location.  Neither experiment provides any empirical information whatsoever about the muon generation instant or location---in any frame.  These latter features are surmized or calculated given assumed theory.  Thus, an alternate explanation must only account for the presense of a muon quantity at the measureing location compatible with those ESTIMATED using SR or whatever.

This may look ridiculous as for the observer in the lab all clocks have the same indication. But from the "view" of the muon the clock at rest at the start looks advanced and the clock at the end looks retarded. So the muon has the impression that the time in the lab was slowed down.

AK: If things only "look" to be dilated/contracted, then you are talking about the virtual image; in which case we have agreed from the start.  BUT, with this explantion the muon data cannot be explained.  To begin, the muons don't look or interact with any exterior observers.  Even the exterior observers look only at the number of muons in a location where they do not expect many.  This muon story does not involve two parties for whcih the appearance can be accounted for in terms of projective geometry in either 3-space (classical optics) or 4-space-time (SR hyperoptics, if you will).

As a reminder: The equation for time transformation is:  t' = gamma* (t - vx / c2)  (i.e. the Lorentz transformation). Here is x the position of that clock which is close to the moving object at the time of observation. And that position is x = v*t if the observer it at rest. So, for this observer there is t' = t/gamma. For a co-moving observer there is v = 0, so the result is t' = t*gamma. Both results are covered by this equation, and there is no logical conflict.

AK: Here again you may be confusing/mixing ontology with perception.  Typically clock readings are at different locations, so they have to be broadcast along light cones to the other party---this usually takes TIME!  (This fact alsos leads to confusion, as there are two times involved, that of the event at the event and that of the news arival not at the event.) But a muon does not wait for a signal from anybody, it uses its clock, basta. It's interval is dilated only as seen from the (passive) observer's frame; about which the muon knows (i.e. waits for light rays from or sends to) nothing nor needs anything.  Likewise, the observer on Earth doesn't know (measure) where or when the muon originated.

AK: Anyway, we know cosmic rays reach the surface of the Earth.  So how many muons have those that almost get that far generated?  SR texts don't address this.

AK: We haven't even got to Eherenfest yet!!!

AK:  ciao,  Al

Best wishes
Albrecht



Hi Albrecht & Curious:

Overlooked in my previous responce:

If, as is done in virtually all text books on SR  (I just checked Rindler, for example) time dilation is discussed in terms of the dialtion happening to a concrete objects (as it must if the Muon story is to make sense) then there is an obvious inconsitency and sever conflict with the relativity principle.  Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own.  The real trick here is explaing how this is not obvious to authors of text books!  Maybe, to paraphrase Weinburg:  That stupid people say dumb things is natural, to get smart people to say dumb things, it takes physics!

Your explantion (or my prefered version: perspctive) renders the objection both mute and sterile wrt muons, however.

Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Oktober 2015 um 22:55 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de><genmail at a-giese.de>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kracklauer at web.de><af.kracklauer at web.de>
Betreff: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
Hi Al,

about time dilation.

The problem is that time dilation looks inconsistent at the first glance. But it is not. I shall try to explain. It has to do with clock synchronization. (I try to do it without graphics, which would be easier, but a problem in an email.)

Assume that there are two inertial systems, I call them A and B. Both move in relation to each other at some speed v. Now assume that there are clocks distributed equally over both systems. And of course in both systems the clocks are synchronized. Now there comes a relativistic effect. If the observer in A looks to the clocks in B, he finds them desynchronized. The clocks which are in front with respect to the direction of motion are retarded, the ones in the rear advanced. Similar in the other system. If an observer in B looks to the clocks in A, he finds them also desynchronized in the way that the clocks in the front are retarded and the clocks in the rear advanced. Shall I explain why this happens? If you want, I can do it. But next time to keep it short here.

Now, what is dilation in this case?

If the observer in A takes one of the clocks in B and compares it to those clocks in his own system, which is just opposite in sequence, then the clock in B looks slowed down. But if he takes one clock in his own system, A, and compares it to the clocks in B which are opposite in sequence, the clocks in B look accelerated.

Now it looks in a similar way for the observer in B. If the observer in B does the equivalent to the observer in A just described, he will make just the same experience. No contradiction!

In the case of the muons: The muon which will decay is in the position of a clock in the muon-system, and this clock is slowed down as seen from the observer at rest as described above, and this is no violation of symmetry between the systems. If an observer, who moves with the muon, looks to the clocks of the system at rest, he will find those clocks accelerated. No contradiction. Correct?

Albrecht


</a>



________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>


Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151012/cc749a10/attachment.htm>

More information about the General mailing list