[General] nature of light particles & theories

[Adam K]

John D,

I agree with you about this picture of fields. I don't think they exist as
arrows pointing around, but are the expressions of something deeper (space
waving, or the such, as you say).

I know that the E and B field is supposed to be in phase! That's what I was
saying. I thought you were saying they aren't in phase. What's going on? If
you're identifying E with the tilt, and B with the time derivative of the
tilt, how are E and B in phase? I don't understand.

Adam




On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:44 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com>
wrote:

> Adam:
>
>
>
> Look at the Wikipedia article a bit more:
>
>
>
> “Also, E and B far-fields in free space, which as wave solutions depend
> primarily on these two Maxwell equations, are in-phase with each other.
> This is guaranteed since the generic wave solution is first order in both
> space and time, and the curl operator on one side of these equations
> results in first-order spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the
> time-derivative on the other side of the equations, which gives the other
> field, is first order in time, resulting in the same phase shift for both
> fields in each mathematical operation.”
>
>
>
>
>
> They’re in phase. Note though that there aren’t really two different field
> variations. It’s the electromagnetic wave, there’s only one wave there. The
> two different derivatives result in two different *forces*. The forces
> that result from electromagnetic field interactions tend to be called
> fields, but they aren’t really fields in any fundamental sense. The
> electron is not surrounded by some electric radial “field of force”. You
> only see some force when you put a positron down near it. Or another
> electron. Or start throwing them around. Or contriving a whole bundle of
> particles into the thing we call a magnet.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* 16 October 2015 19:54
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Qiuhong Hu <qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
>
>
> John D,
>
>
>
> I agree about the elephant.
>
>
>
> I am still trying to understand your picture of things. I'm not sure if
> the "problem" my thought experiment posed has been solved or not, but in
> this direction, I have a question:
>
>
>
> You say that we have some distortion in space, and that the slope of this
> distortion can be identified with the E field. I feel there may be some
> difficulty with this but leaving that aside, can you explain further what
> you mean about the rate of change of the slope of this distortion being
> identified with the B field? You say
>
>
>
> As you rise up it the tilt of your canoe denotes E. That’s the spatial
> derivative. The rate of change of tilt denotes B. That’s the time
> derivative.
>
>
>
> The issue here for me is that if the E field is a sine wave, the B field
> will be a cosine wave, that is, phase shifted by pi/2 radians. In other
> words, from your diagram:
>
>
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
>
>
>
> When distortion reaches the value A, the E field as you have described it
> is indeed zero, but the B field (the rate of change of the tilt, i.e. d/dt
> sin) is actually at a maximum (well, an extremal value). In this case, the
> E and B fields are out of phase, which is definitely a problem for EM
> fields in vacuum! What gives?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:53 AM, John Duffield <
> johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
>
> Adam:
>
>
>
> My pleasure re the links. I think of electromagnetic *waves* as actual
> undulations in space. Take a look at the Wikipedia article
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation#Derivation_from_electromagnetic_theory>
> and note this:
>
>
>
> “the curl operator on one side of these equations results in first-order
> spatial derivatives of the wave solution, while the time-derivative on the
> other side of the equations, which gives the other field, is first order in
> time”.
>
>
>
> The electric aspect of the electromagnetic is the spatial derivative,
> whilst the magnetic aspect is the time derivative. But there’s only one
> wave there. To understand this, imagine you’re in a  canoe on a flat calm
> ocean, and a wave comes at you. This wave is a photon, and it has no
> trough, it’s just a hump. As you rise up it the tilt of your canoe denotes
> E. That’s the spatial derivative. The rate of change of tilt denotes B.
> That’s the time derivative. But there aren’t two waves there, it’s an
> electromagnetic wave. Note that at the top of the wave your canoe is
> momentarily flat. This corresponds to the middle of the E and the B sine
> waves. Then going down the other side the tilt of your canoe is reversed.
> The picture below shows the electromagnetic wave with the sine wave for E
> below it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The concept I hold is that space is warped or twisted one way then the
> other as the photon passes  by. For the electron’s “standing wave”
> electromagnetic field, it’s twisted all the way round, akin to
> gravitomagnetic frame-dragging. Ditto for the positron but with the
> opposite chirality. Each is a dynamical spinor, and they move something
> like this (simplified flat) depiction:
>
>
>
>
>
> Co-rotating vortices repel, counter-rotating vortices attract. They swirl
> around each other too. If you place them down with no initial relative
> motion they move linearly together, and we talk of an electric field. When
> you throw one past the other you also see rotational motion, and we talk
> of  a magnetic field. When you only see the latter because of the way
> particle motion is contrived in matter, we call it a magnet. Neutron motion
> is different to electron or positron motion because it’s like two spinors.
> In my humble opinion it is a great pity that Maxwell died before the
> electron was discovered. If he had not, I suspect he would have appreciated
> that he got his molecular vortices back to front.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That’s how I see it anyway. There may be some imperfection, but it
> “works”, and I think we’re all feeling the same elephant.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> John D
>
>
>
>
>
> PS: take a look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum
> <https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=electromagnetic+spectrum&biw=1366&bih=651&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB8QsARqFQoTCLXfoaLHx8gCFYY7PgodptAMXA>.
> All waves are the same height, and h has the dimensionality of momentum x
> distance. When you pluck a guitar, your pluck is always the same, even when
> the wavelength is not.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=
> btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] *On Behalf Of *Adam K
> *Sent:* 16 October 2015 12:48
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
>
>
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151016/0010965a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21549 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image014.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image012.png
Type: image/png
Size: 60630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 106466 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 26044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43482 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151016/0010965a/attachment-0001.jpg>