[General] nature of light particles & theories

[Adam K]

Hi Chip,

Okay, I am getting things much better now. We are just getting hung up on
words. When I asked John about space waves (I understand his point of view
better with each email he sends me) I thought he was talking about
gravitational waves. So that was on my mind when you said Maxwell had the
same idea, which shocked me. But you meant 'waves in an all pervasive
medium like water or air', which just makes so much more sense. This is
basically the notion of a wave itself, no? Huygens had the same idea!

And as for the momentum transfer thing, again I think it's just
phraseology. You wrote first that "momentum transfer (space waving) which
of course does create EM phenomena..." which somewhat baffled me. But you
clarified it with "When viewed from that perspective, momentum transfer
between these two billiard balls is a transfer of momentum between these
fields of the fermions within."  Which is basically what I was guessing. I
think this is the standard picture of 'contact' in general, only you extend
the idea by trying to unify it all into a framework of space. I got
confused because I understand your clarification as actually saying the
opposite of what you said first i.e. something like "EM phenomena (space
waving) which of course does create momentum transfer..."

As for the relativity issue, you clarified that as well, thank you.
Obviously I cannot ask any questions about your view until knowing more
about it. I hope it is fruitful and elegant. My *a priori* attitude would
be one of skepticism though, since I have seen so many examples of really
bad and crazy thinking in this direction. Al called the desire to prove
Einstein wrong an "affliction", which I think is fairly insightful. For
some reason crazy people think Einstein is an easy or even desirable
target. I'm not saying you are one of these people at all! Only that I am
taking a kind of initial position based on statistical heuristics.

One of my own reasons for believing Einstein is that not long after GR came
out, an absolutely unthinkable, monstrous, previously unimaginable object
was predicted from it. We seem to have found these objects at the center of
galaxies, including our own <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*>.
Generating a theory that not only allows you to imagine something you could
never have imagined without it, but also predicts the existence of such an
object which when you go looking you find AT THE CENTER OF THE GALAXY, is
unutterably awesome. It borders on religious significance, thus *tacete.*

Cheers,

Adam





On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Adam
>
>
>
> Wow. Where to start?  Good thoughts and questions.
>
>
>
> Regrettably, part of sorting all this out requires us to try to understand
> the history and thought processes of those giants before us.  Don’t get the
> impression that all the thoughts of those giants before us were right, but
> we can learn from them.  If the discoverers before us had gotten it all
> right we would now have the answers, but yet we are not there.
>
>
>
> However many of the pieces have been discovered.  Maxwell had a background
> in fluid mechanics.  If you take a look at the equations of wave transport
> in an elastic solid and compare them with Maxwell’s work you will begin to
> see how he derived his new (1860’s) equations. These equations describe the
> motion of a transverse wave through an elastic solid type of medium.  This
> is why I said that Maxwell started from the concept that “space waves” as
> John D. says.
>
>
>
> Now for the two billiard balls.  It is my understanding that the fermionic
> particles which make up the billiard balls are made from the same energy
> that EM radiation (light) is made if.  The E=mc2 thing.  Para-positronium
> annihilation to photons, etc. Mass is energy.  As many in the group have
> suggested, I believe these fermions are confined circulating energy, which
> creates fields, electric charges… the stuff of fermionic particles.  When
> viewed from that perspective, momentum transfer between these two billiard
> balls is a transfer of momentum between these fields of the fermions
> within. So that all momentum transfer is the same.
>
> It is momentum transfer by the same means we see in photons.  EM fields
> are there in any momentum transfer. In a photon, how are the EM fields
> generated? In my view they are created by the motion, waving, displacement
> of space… by momentum in space.
>
>
>
> For us to derive these motions, understand the momentum, and its
> consequences, we must use the 3 spatial dimensions and time. Any motion
> study requires time. So yes Maxwell’s equations need to be extended in a
> manner which includes the correct form of relativity.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now about SR and GR.  The following is my opinion.  When we say that
> fermions are made of the same form of energy which light is made of.
> Confined and circulating at the speed of light. We do not need any
> definition for space other than Euclidian 3 space, and time. Relativity, in
> its correct form is a natural consequence of this scenario. But SR and GR
> are not this form of relativity. The differences between this form of
> relativity and SR and GR are so small that they are probably very difficult
> to detect in most experiments, but significant when it comes to
> understanding the details of physics.  For example this form of relativity
> predicts the contraction of the transport radius of the confined energy in
> relativistic fermions, accurately deriving de Broglie’s wavelength in such
> circumstances.  This form of relativity also predicts standard Lorentz
> contraction for atoms, or larger objects.  This form of relativity is built
> on the premise that matter is made from the same stuff light is made of in
> a Euclidian space, that moves in specific ways, reacts with itself in
> specific ways, transfers momentum like an elastic solid with a specific set
> of attributes. More clearly demonstrating cause and effect than any other
> form of relativity.
>
>
>
> Sorry to get sidetracked into this relativity issue so deeply, but I feel
> it is very important.
>
>
>
> We need to build our new theories on the best and most accurate foundation
> possible, or we will find ourselves again stuck and unable to finish the
> puzzle.
>
>
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=
> gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:48 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png at 01D107D6.CCCBF750]
>
> 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:[image: cid:image002.jpg at 01D107D6.CCCBF750]
>
> 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.
>
> [image: cid:image003.png at 01D107D6.CCCBF750]
>
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d5a259ed/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/d5a259ed/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 60630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/d5a259ed/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/d5a259ed/attachment-0001.png>