[General] nature of light particles & theories

[John Duffield]

When it comes to the muon, I think it’s simplest to think of it as light
going round and round and round. And then to say it does so for circa one
zillion revolutions before the muon decays. Only if it’s moving fast it
isn’t going round and round and round in a circle, it’s helical instead.
Hence the one zillion revolutions take longer. So the muon lifetime is
extended.



Then once the muon has decayed and a more-or-less massless chargeless
neutrino has departed at the speed of light, all you’re left with is light
going round and round. We then call it an electron. 

As regards symmetrical time dilation, I agree it’s akin to perspective.
When we are separated by distance, I say you look smaller than me, and you
say I look smaller than you. But we don’t then say whoa paradox! Nor should
we say that when we are separated by relative motion. Our time is just the
number of reflections on our parallel-mirror light clock
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilati
on_due_to_relative_velocity> . And the light in that clock either looks like
this | or it looks like this /\/\/\/\/\. It’s like the circle and the helix
viewed from the side. Special relativity works because of the wave nature of
matter, as per the attached The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by
Robert Close.    

Regards

John D

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandpar
ticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 12 October 2015 19:11
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray
<ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org>; ARNOLD BENN
<arniebenn at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

 

Gentlemen,

I detect a tendency to act as though physics is a kind of chocolate box from
which one can discard the flavours one does not like. Not so. It all has to
fit together and all has to agree with experiment.

Everything - however you mess up your view of it - has to stay consistent
with experiment. A safe way of doing this is keeping with some fundamental
principles, never known to violated, such as the absolute conservation of
energy.

Sorry Chandra, you just cannot "discard Special Relativity" and keep GR,
since SR is in GR as an element of it (in the diagonal of the metric
tensor). Agree with the standing on shoulders of giants bit though (and with
most of the rest of what you say).

Al, Albrecht is right. There is no contradiction - just something you need
to understand about the symmetry. You seem to see a contradiction where
there is none present. You make some statements as though they are fact
which are not fact. 
For example you say >>>

"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not
their own." 


Yes they can. Yes they must, it has to be symmetric! Saying something does
not make it true, however sensible it may seem to the sayer. There is no
actual dilation. The existence of another entity somewhere has no bearing on
the local properties elsewhere. All is as viewed, all is perspective (good
word). If this is what you are on about then we agree.

It seems to me though that is not all those textbook writers that are
missing something but you. Both observers DO see each other clocks running
slow. The Muon in the muon decay sees the earth as approaching it at near
lightspeed  -in its primary stillness and pure stationary state. The Earth
it observes is still round - but as round as a pancake. The muon decays in
2.2 microseconds, in its frame, as usual. This layers multiple kilometres
into the earth in the earth frame though. This is because the muon thinks
the earth is as flat as a pancake. No  contradiction - no problem. If it
were two earths colliding, with muons in them, each muon in each earth would
see the other earth as flat. Perfectly symmetrically. Both sets of observers
(as their last act in this case) would observe muons to live longer when
moving fast in their frame.

This is all symmetric. The base reason (for space and time contraction) is
explained in the first of my two papers to SPIE (where gamma is derived from
photon energy transformations E=H nu) , and arises, simply, from the
linearity and conservation of energy. It is just derivative of the Doppler
shift of photons. Dead simple. Do the maths! You can discard SR if you like,
but you must also lose energy conservation and the relation E=h nu if you
do. SR is that relation which maintains energy linearity and conservation of
energy for light.  Chandra is right: there are some things that are simply
more fundamental than other things. Energy (and hence frequency) is,
apparently, more fundamental than space and time scales. You need to get
this! Read my paper!

Regards, John (W).

  _____  

From: General
[general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticl
es.org] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; phys at a-giese.de
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

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/>
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.natureoflightan
dparticles.org] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.
de> 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44 AM
To: phys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org, "A. F. Kracklauer"
<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>



  

  _____  


 <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/f87d9673/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 18835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151012/f87d9673/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OtherRelativity.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 580975 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151012/f87d9673/attachment.pdf>