[General] nature of light particles & theories
Dr. Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Oct 15 06:44:01 PDT 2015
John D.:
when we do physics we have the choice either to do algebra or to accept
the goal to understand physics.
It was a new direction in the physics of the 20th century to replace the
work on physics by working on algebra. Albert Einstein started this way
to develop relativity as a mathematical construct (whereas later he did
not like this way any longer), Werner Heisenberg followed this way very
strictly (and got in this way into conflict e.g. with Schrödinger, who
still tried to work with an understanding of physics itself).
If we intend to work on relativity using physical understanding, as
Hendrik Lorentz did, we have to find a cause for relativistic dilation;
not only a mathematical solution for the constancy of c. And the only
cause of dilation which I know is the fact of a permanent motion at c
inside of elementary particles. Schrödinger found this fact in the Dirac
function (and it had to be found, as the Dirac function describes the
relativistic behaviour of electrons) and gave it this funny name
"Zitterbewegung" (because he had bad feelings about it).
Louis de Broglie always had the position to tread particle behaviour as
a task about physics, not as a task of developing a working algebra. It
is quite funny that just his first great step was a piece of paper where
he developed a deduction of the (de Broglie) wavelength by doing
algebra. But it honours him - in my view - that he criticized this way
in the same paper as he stated that the idea behind his result is not
really physics.
I am aware that "Zitterbewegung" is explained in a different (i.e. less
physical) way by quantum theorists. But it is my experience that we can
have great progress in understanding the nature of matter by going back
to understand physics rather than doing algebra. Algebra can, of course,
be of a great help to describe physical processes which are already
understood. But it is not a proper replacement of understanding.
Best regards
Albrecht
PS: AMöbius strip is a funny and interesting geometrical construct. But
its existence is no explanation why (i.e. by which force) something on
this path is kept on this path.
Am 13.10.2015 um 00:06 schrieb John Duffield:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> It’s easier to dwell on the bones of contention rather than share the
> wide acres of common ground. See the Wikipedia Zitterbewegung
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung> article:
>
> The resulting expression consists of an initial position, a motion
> proportional to time, and an unexpected oscillation term with an
> amplitude equal to the Compton wavelength. That oscillation term is
> the so-called "Zitterbewegung". Interestingly, the "Zitterbewegung"
> term vanishes on taking expectation values for wave-packets that are
> made up entirely of positive- (or entirely of negative-) energy waves.
> This can be achieved by taking a Foldy Wouthuysen transformation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldy-Wouthuysen_transformation>. Thus,
> we arrive at the interpretation of the "Zitterbewegung" as being
> caused by interference between positive- and negative-energy wave
> components.
>
> I don’t like the idea of negative-energy waves myself. But I do like
> the way the Dirac equations is a wave equation. And I like that the
> Compton wavelength. And the wave packets. And how we make electrons
> and positrons out of light waves in pair production, then diffract
> them, then annihilate them to get our light waves back. And how in the
> Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation article you can read this:
>
> In optics, it has enabled to see the deeper connections in the
> wavelength-dependent regime between light optics and charged-particle
> optics (see Electron optics
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_optics>).
>
> There’s something going round and round in there. And it sure as hell
> ain’t cheese <https://www.google.co.uk/#q=zitterbewegung+rotation>.
> Draw a sinusoidal waveform on a strip of paper, then cut it out so
> you’ve got a piece of paper like this:
>
> You’ve got a positive curvature followed by a negative curvature. Now
> make a M/ö/bius strip. It ought to be a double loop, like a line drawn
> around a M/ö/bius strip, then you’ve got two things orbiting each
> other. Then everybody’s happy. But that’s one for another day.
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* 12 October 2015 22:02
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
> 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>
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>
> <mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray
> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>;
> Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org> <mailto:abooth at ieee.org>; ARNOLD
> BENN <arniebenn at mac.com> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de <mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>, "phys >>
> Dr. Albrecht Giese" <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>
> *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>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </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>
>
---
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/20151015/cca58821/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151015/cca58821/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- 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/20151015/cca58821/attachment.png>
More information about the General
mailing list