[General] nature of light particles & theories

[Dr. Albrecht Giese]

Dear John,

great, I almost agree. But replace "light going around" by 
"zitterbewegung". Because zitterbewegung is the cause of special 
relativity, it acts like the parallel-mirror light clock.

Regards
Albrecht

PS: Will come back to your previous mail soon.



Am 12.10.2015 um 22:28 schrieb 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_dilation_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.natureoflightandparticles.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.natureoflightandparticles.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/; 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/c^2 ) 
> 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 <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 / c^2 )  (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>
>     <UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>     *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>     <UrlBlockedError.aspx>, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kracklauer at web.de>
>     <UrlBlockedError.aspx>
>     *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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151012/120b34fb/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/20151012/120b34fb/attachment.png>