[General] nature of light particles & theories

[Adam K]

John W,

Equal and opposite bullshit! Great line. You could even make it into a
law: *For
every shit there is an equal and opposite bullshit. *

For what it's worth, I knew you were doing lots of careful thinking about
combinations of space and time and what these vector quantities were, thus
my reference to Clifford algebra. But perhaps Clifford algebra really is
not the right term for what you are doing.

Also, while you may be deducing the electromagnetic field from something
else, you ARE trying to deduce quantum / symmetry properties of matter
(electrons) from the EM field, right? I mean, otherwise why have those
pretty pictures with the bent around vectors in your SPIE paper?

I will try to spend more time on your paper. The reason that

   1. What is thought is not said
   2. What is said is not heard
   3. What is heard is not understood
   4. What is understood is not believed
   5. What is believed is not yet advocated
   6. What is advocated is not yet acted on
   7. What is acted on is not yet completed

is that thinking one's own ideas is hard enough, not to mention thinking
the ideas of other people! Who has the time for all this? Well, got to make
time.

Thanks,

Adam

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John D,
>
> My favorite thing about your emails is all of the references all over the
> place to stuff I haven't heard of before. Thanks for sending me Hammond's
> work, I will try to get my hands on it somehow.
>
> So am I right in thinking that you think of the EM field as actual
> undulations in space (R^3) but not spacetime (M)? If so, can you explain
> the difference between the electric and magnetic fields? Do they bend space
> differently?
>
> Also, here's a thought experiment which makes me think I'm not following
> you: if I set up an extremely strong electrical field between two plates,
> then presumably there is a kind of warping or shear of space between these
> plates. But wouldn't this entail that the paths of all tiny objects like
> neutrons, electrons and positrons would follow the same bent path? Of
> course all three follow very different paths!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:25 AM, John Duffield <
> johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> Adam:
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m saying light is an electromagnetic wave, and that it’s a genuine wave
>> in space. Maxwell described light as transverse undulations, and I know of
>> no wave where the thing the wave is travelling through *doesn’t* wave.
>> Percy Hammond described electromagnetism in terms of curvature, google on
>> electromagnetic geometry
>> <https://www.google.co.uk/#q=electromagnetic+geometry>. Whilst we tend
>> to think of gravity in terms of curvature, it’s to do with curved spacetime
>> rather than curved space. And curved spacetime is in essence a curvature in
>> the inhomogeneity of space. See the inhomogeneous vacuum paper in my email
>> of the 11th. Einstein described a gravitational field as a place where
>> space is “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”. Not curved.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chandra:
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ve spoken to Qiu Hong Hu, and yes please he would like to be added to
>> the group.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> JohnD
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
>> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
>> *Sent:* 15 October 2015 23:41
>> *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/20151016/94c2e0f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20151016/94c2e0f7/attachment.png>
-------------- 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/20151016/94c2e0f7/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/20151016/94c2e0f7/attachment.jpg>