[General] nature of light particles & theories

[Adam K]

Btw, I just reread what I wrote earlier and I meant that the "the space
wave picture is not new, and goes back to *Einstein* at least." Underlying
my questions to you and my assumptions is the idea that waves in space was
not something that existed as a concept before Einstein. (I could be wrong
about this, which is why I added the "at least" -- do I remember seeing
somewhere that Riemann had these ideas first?) I said Kelvin because I was
thinking about his vortex model, wondering if it might count, but of course
it doesn't because they were knots in a fluid medium pervading space. If
you are using the word "space" to mean something closer to ether as it was
conceived by Huygens / Maxwell / Kelvin etc. that would make a lot more
sense of what you wrote, as well as my confusion.

Adam

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Chip,
>
> Thanks for writing. I was a bit confused by what you wrote! Maybe you can
> help explain.
>
> I have no idea how Maxwell's equations define (either "in large part" as
> you say, or in any part) how "space moves in reaction to EM fields."
>  Maxwell's equations need four dimensions to be defined (at least in the
> wave equation case, which is I suppose the only one of interest for the
> people here), and the usual way of interpreting those equations is that
> they define vector fields over space. (When I say "space" I mean the three
> dimensional vector space over the real numbers, a vector field over space
> is in this case a map from R^3 to R^3, there is no sense in which the
> domain of this map is moving.) If you replace "space" in your sentence with
> "electron" or "matter", or even "EM fields", then what you said makes sense
> to me. Otherwise, it seems that one needs at minimum the Einstein-Maxwell
> equations to define how space moves in reaction to EM fields. What am I
> missing here?
>
> (Incidentally, am I ignorant of some historical fact in Maxwell's own
> thought? I was under the impression that the contribution of Maxwell's that
> is relevant here was to undermine the mechanistic Newtonian worldview by
> taking seriously Faraday's notion of a field. But there is a great
> difference between the concept of a field and the concept of space,
> clearly. So how was Maxwell considering this subject "in the same general
> manner"?)
>
> I know that the space wave picture is not new, and goes back to Kelvin at
> least. The sentence immediately following that is very opaque to me, I
> don't think I can ask an intelligent question about it. Just to express my
> puzzlement: e.g. what does it even mean to say that momentum transfer
> creates EM phenomena, much less to say this as though it is obvious? Two
> perfectly neutral billiard balls can transfer momentum without creating any
> fields around themselves. Do you mean that the electrons in the billiard
> balls need to repel each other? But then how is this *creating* any EM
> phenomena? I think if I can understand what you meant in the first
> paragraph this part will become clearer.
>
> When you say that motion of space in reaction to energy is not much more
> complex than Maxwell's equations, are you explicitly rejecting General
> Relativity? It seems to me that the "motion of space in reaction to energy"
> is precisely what Einstein's equations specify, but also that they are very
> much more complex than Maxwell...
>
> Finally, I know a bit about John W and Martin's older work, and John W's
> newer work, which I interpreted as an attempt to deduce the quantum and
> symmetry properties of matter, and electrons specifically, from the
> electromagnetic field only. I'm sure John W can correct me if I've missed
> something here. The closest thing in his work that I understood as having
> to do with the motion of space was Clifford algebra, which still doesn't
> really have anything to do with the motion of space!
>
> Martin, why haven't I read your new stuff yet? What is wrong with me?
> Where is it at?!?!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> Maxwell approached the subject in the same general manner and his
>> equations are a definition of a large part of how space moves in reaction
>> to EM fields. But the information available in 1865 was not the complete
>> picture. We now have more information about spin, and several other topics
>> than was at hand when Maxwell did his work.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the idea that space waves is not a new one, but a good one.  A more
>> complete picture is created when we view the transfer of energy not as just
>> EM phenomena, but rather momentum transfer (space waving) which of course
>> does create EM phenomena, but does other things as well. It seems that
>> Chandra’s CTF is that space, which has the properties to cause the fields
>> and forces we can measure, because of the way it moves and reacts with
>> itself and those fields. The momentum (motion) of space in reaction to
>> energy (which is momentum, motion) is more complex than envisioned by
>> Maxwell, but not much more complex.  John W., Martin, and I are working to
>> try to sort out exactly how this all fits what we observe.
>>
>>
>>
>> Martin and John W. have made some significant progress in this regard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
>> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:41 PM
>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Cc:* qiuhong.hu at physics.gu.se
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>>
>>
>>
>> John D:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Space waves. It’s that simple."
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that light is actually a gravitational wave? Or do you
>> mean something else by "space" here?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chandra,
>>
>>
>>
>> Re John D.'s last email about space waves, and *understanding* rather
>> than being a symbol monkey, do you or anyone you know have ideas about how
>> the CTS might actually move (the rules governing it) to create what we
>> observe?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM, John Duffield <
>> johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with your sentiment. We have to understand the physics. Maths is
>> a vital too for physics, but the maths is not enough. Yes, we have to find
>> the cause for relativistic dilation, but I think it’s quite obvious when
>> you think of the parallel-mirror zigzags, which are like side-on helixes.
>> The electron has a spherical symmetry, but simplify it to a ring like this:
>>
>>
>>
>> When it moves fast it is “smeared out” into a cylinder. Everything else
>> looks shortened in comparison. I know people say this demands an absolute
>> frame and that isn’t in the spirit of relativity, but I don’t care. Because
>> the CMB is a de-facto reference frame of the universe, and the universe is
>> as absolute as it gets.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Mobius strip is no understand of why  something on that path stays on
>> the path. But displacement current
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current#History_and_interpretation>
>> is. Light is alternating displacement current. And this displacement
>> current is a real displacement. Hence *“light consists of transverse
>> undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic
>> phenomena”*. Space waves. It’s that simple. When a small ocean wave
>> rides up and over a big one, its path is displaced. When it is displaced so
>> much that it rides over itself, its path is similarly displaced. *Into a
>> closed path.*
>>
>>
>>
>> All:
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if I might take the liberty of copying in Qiu-Hong Hu, author of
>> “The Nature of the Electron”, see  http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512265
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John D
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:* 15 October 2015 14:44
>> *To:* John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>; phys at a-giese.de;
>> 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <
>> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: A Möbius 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
>> <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
>> <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>
>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Cc:* Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk> <nick at bailey-family.org.uk>;
>> Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>;
>> Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org> <abooth at ieee.org>; ARNOLD BENN
>> <arniebenn at mac.com> <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
>> *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/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
>> <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>
>> *An:* af.kracklauer at web.de, "phys >> Dr. Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de
>> >
>> *Cc:* 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [image: 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" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [image: 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> [image: 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 afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
>> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
>> <a href="
>> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>> ">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151015/5e444d9c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151015/5e444d9c/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 60630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151015/5e444d9c/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151015/5e444d9c/attachment.jpg>