[General] nature of light particles & theories

Tue Oct 20 00:47:15 PDT 2015

Dear John W (and anyone else who cares),

So John D has given up, probably in response to me throwing up my hands in exasperation. I don't feel like we were communicating at all, which really confuses me. I thought I was asking a simple question about something he said, but after repeating the same question roughly 4 times, I am no better off than in the beginning.

Apologies in advance to John D (though he does not need this – it is just for the rest of you!). I am going to say he was “wrong” in several respects. We are friends though, this will not be the first time – nor the last!

John D is a talented explainer of difficult concepts in a simple and often insightful way. He was getting a bit carried away with some of his analogies though. Describing something as hard to understand as the (six- component) field was always going to run into difficulties in terms of a floating object on a 2D surface embedded in an 3D space. There is no way that a magnetic field can be a FIRST spatial or temporal derivative of an electric field or vice versa. This is just wrong. The first derivatives of fields are, conventionally, (4) vectors. dF=J (d mu f mu nu – J nu in tensor algebra where mu and nu both run from 0 to 3). In the standard Maxwell equations this is, then, just the (4) current. What the equations say is that the (temporal) change in the electric is BALANCED by a (spatial) change in the magnetic field. They could be 4-trivectors too - but that is at a level yet further beyond!

  Coming back, even if one goes to the second differential - the wave equation then - this usually gives electric in terms of electric or magnetic in terms of magnetic.

To go directly from electric to magnetic one would need to invent a different kind of second order derivative. Something like this is done in advanced discussions on the weak interaction.

Since you took it upon yourself to aid the sinking canoe, I will write with my thoughts. But first I should reply to your previous email which purported to give answers.

I was a bit surprised that you took it upon yourself to deliver a tutorial, because the whole point of the back and forth with John D was my attempt at trying to understand how HE thought of electromagnetism. So textbooks are quite beside the point.

Remember, not everyone understands everything. Also different lines of thought should be followed till they break…

In this case they did. Rapidly.

 Also, the whole context of our exchange was based on the notion of EM waves being reducible to spatial deformations. For those two reasons, there was a lot in your email that confused me. (For example: 1) how you seemed to be claiming that EM had already, and quite standardly, been completely reduced to spacetime deformations (maybe I was projecting this onto your dialogue, since otherwise the whole dialogue seemed irrelevant);

No. There is much that is incomplete in the standard discussion on electromagnetism. I am trying to fix this. Likewise, in relativistic QM (Dirac theory) there are simple conceptual mistakes and mis-conceptions at its very basis.These need fixing too.

The reason I gave the tutorial is that, where you and John D did not seem to getting the point, it seemed to me, was at the level of standard, 4D tensor electromagnetism.

It may, or may not be possible, to reduce everything to space and time deformations – but one needs to do it right!  This is very very serious and very very difficult.  I may think I have already done this in my new theory – but the likelihood it that this is wrong, at least in detail. That is what this is all about for me – not a game to try to understand physics-as-it-is, but to invent new physics as it ought to be. That is what I am doing (or attempting to do at any rate).

This is exactly what

2) how you seemed to be claiming that the quantity dx (or dy, dz) and dt represent small "stretches" or deformations in space and time;

No  - I said “stretch” was not the right word and I do not see these as mere “stretches” in the usual sense of the word. In my imagination (hard to describe!) they are perhaps more like “whorls” or “extensions sideways” though this is also not a sufficient term for the task. The ONLY author I have ever heard make sense on this was Pask. He talked about there being a perpendicular thing for everything (in the context of forces). Reading him, at the moment, will probably only serve to, as we Scots say, “do your head in”.

What they are are what the “differential” is actually paralleling in underlying reality. Whatever that is! What they are in the maths is easier to understand: there they are a DIVISION by a little bit of space or a little bit of time. Only problem then is to understand what it really means to divide by a little bit of space or a little bit of time. Hard, conceptually. Firstly, you need to understand what division is. This is far harder than you may imagine. Martin and I wrote a paper about it, which several journals have, so far, declined to publish. Pity.

Even if you get this you need to then understand what space and time ARE. Now that is hard both conceptually and IN PRONCIPLE (Godel, Wittgenstein).

  3) if (1) were true, how in the world a tensor formalism -- just translating things into a different language -- accomplishes such magic;

Normal tensor formalism is, effectively, 2D. The canoe problem applies. It is simply not up to the task in hand. That is the point. Convincing the rest of the world, however, is going to be an uphill struggle. I aim to start by trying to get some of you to get it!

3) if (1) were true, what the quantity A is supposed to be if not an expression of the EM field separate from spacetime deformations -- and related to that, what the terms "x part, y part" are meant to be parts of;

Precisely. You begin to see the scale of the problem. I think I get it. Martin may too. At present, there is no evidence that anyone else does – despite having talked aboyt it and written about it for nearly a decade.

4) and probably a few other things.) We can go into all that if you want.

I do want. This is what I am trying to write, and publish, papers about at the moment.

If (1) is true I'd like to know about it, but in general I'd kind of prefer not to go into all that since I did not grasp the basic motivation of your writing. I was asking an extremely simple question, and your answer was orders of magnitude more complex than what would have answered my question.

In that, you are correct. Orders of magnitude more understanding are, however, exactly what is needed.

To wit, I had been asking the same simple question of John D over and over. His emails were not addressing the question, and your email did not address it either. So I am kind of going a little mad.

This is perfectly normal. No need to panic! It is so damn hard to grasp that all the brightest and best in 20th century science went mad trying to understand it too.  Sometimes I think that the understanding situation is going backwards, not forwards in the 21st century. This makes me mad!

To repeat myself yet again:  John D was talking about a deformation in space, call it D. He was saying that the spatial derivative of D was E. And then (I thought) he was saying that the time derivative of E was B.

He was. He was wrong.

I was saying that if you take the time derivative of a trigonometric function that depends on time you will get (perhaps among other things) another trig function shifted pi/2 radians, so then E and B would not be in phase. So I thought he did not mean what he said, and that instead he meant B = dD/dt.

He did. At the time.

Instead of saying to me: I don't mean B = dE/dt, or I do mean B = dE/dt, John D has said that B ≠ dD/dt, and also that -dB/dt = curl E. This latter one implies that B ≠ dE/dt, though John D has not come out and said this. The consequence is that I no longer have any idea what he was saying in the first place.

Its ok. John D was having a moment of insight based on a particular starting position. Its called thinking. The fact that this was “ongehinderd door enige vorm van kennis” was irrelevant. He was just having fun with a train of thought that was, simply, wrong. No problem. We all do it. I should, indeed, not be spending time on explaining simple things to you two though … what I should really be doing is reading the article David posted on RQM – which looks as though it may be really interesting and to which I am simply not getting round.

All I ever wanted from him was some clarification on how he could think of B = dE/dt, or an acknowledgement that this is not what he meant, and that he meant something else. If I could have gotten either, I could have tried to understand things more. But we could never get beyond this simple, simple point.

I know. It is all right. Nothing to worry about. I get it all the time.

He has said to me over and over that there is only one wave, not two -- but this was never disputed. He also said in his last email that maybe somebody else can explain the issue of space and time derivatives, but I don't see how anybody else could help. I don't need Maxwell's equations explained to me, or how to derive the wave equation from them, or how the wave equation beautifully mixes spatial and temporal derivatives. If somebody else steps in, won't they just affirm Maxwell's equations, or covariant electromagnetism (as you appear to have done), or perhaps their own personal theory?

Yes: usually.

My question involved something he said, about something he thought regarding EM, which to my understanding is far from standard theory because it conceives the EM field geometrically.

The EM field IS (I hope) geometrical. All one then needs to understand is in which geometry and what the underlying rules of that geometry are. There are an infinite number of possible, conceptual, geometries. Some of these can be put into a useful form (in terms of such things as differential equations with which one can calculate, for example. Only one of these (if any) is correct. I have come up with one possibility. Martin is looking at another from a different perspective. John D imagined a third – which we have, collectively, just dispatched.  We all play with variations of the possible set of starting positions. Just go with the flow and join in the fun!

If I've made some error in expression, such that nobody can understand what I am saying, I guess I'd like to know. I'd guess I'd also like to know if anyone read John D's email the way I did, or even found my reading plausible, i.e. if my question made sense. It should not be this hard to clear up such basic things.

Dear Adam: in one sense you are kind of asking. How does it all work? Me too!  In another : yes your question (to John D) did make sense – eventually it exposed the weaknesses in the analogy. Good.

The whole exchange is on this thread though perhaps a bit buried because the last bits were off list.

I have the feeling that more and more of the conversations are going “off list”. This may be kind of inevitable when people do not seem to get things which are “explained” in standard textbooks. In some cases folk are even questioning what is IN standard textbooks. I am saying Jackson does not get it, Al is saying most textbook writers of SR do not get it (he is right). David  and Albrecht are reading things into QCD from deep inelastic lepton scatting which are simply not true ( I may get on to this but life, and time are short).  It takes a lot of work to keep the threads together and to make progress. Don’t jump out or you will get into a ghetto! All of us disagree about something.

Adam

John W.

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Adam K [afokay at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 12:01 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Joakim Pettersson; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; Ariane Mandray; ARNOLD BENN
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Dear John W (and anyone else who cares),

So John D has given up, probably in response to me throwing up my hands in exasperation. I don't feel like we were communicating at all, which really confuses me. I thought I was asking a simple question about something he said, but after repeating the same question roughly 4 times, I am no better off than in the beginning.

John D is a talented explainer of difficult concepts in a simple and often insightful way. He was getting a bit carried away with some of his analogies though. Describing something as hard to understand as the (siz) field was always going to run into difficulties in terms of a floating object on a 2D surface embedded in an 3D space. There is no way that a magnetic field can be a FIRST spatial or temporal derivative of an electric field or vice versa. This is just wrong. The first derivitaives of fields are (4) vectors. In the standard Maxwell equations this is just the (4) current.

 Even if one goes to the second differntial - the wave equation then - this usually giveselectric in terms of electric or magnetic in terms of magnetic.

Since you took it upon yourself to aid the sinking canoe, I will write with my thoughts. But first I should reply to your previous email which purported to give answers.

I was a bit surprised that you took it upon yourself to deliver a tutorial, because the whole point of the back and forth with John D was my attempt at trying to understand how HE thought of electromagnetism. So textbooks are quite beside the point. Also, the whole context of our exchange was based on the notion of EM waves being reducible to spatial deformations. For those two reasons, there was a lot in your email that confused me. (For example: 1) how you seemed to be claiming that EM had already, and quite standardly, been completely reduced to spacetime deformations (maybe I was projecting this onto your dialogue, since otherwise the whole dialogue seemed irrelevant); 2) how you seemed to be claiming that the quantity dx (or dy, dz) and dt represent small "stretches" or deformations in space and time; 3) if (1) were true, how in the world a tensor formalism -- just translating things into a different language -- accomplishes such magic; 3) if (1) were true, what the quantity A is supposed to be if not an expression of the EM field separate from spacetime deformations -- and related to that, what the terms "x part, y part" are meant to be parts of; 4) and probably a few other things.) We can go into all that if you want. If (1) is true I'd like to know about it, but in general I'd kind of prefer not to go into all that since I did not grasp the basic motivation of your writing. I was asking an extremely simple question, and your answer was orders of magnitude more complex than what would have answered my question.

To wit, I had been asking the same simple question of John D over and over. His emails were not addressing the question, and your email did not address it either. So I am kind of going a little mad.

To repeat myself yet again:  John D was talking about a deformation in space, call it D. He was saying that the spatial derivative of D was E. And then (I thought) he was saying that the time derivative of E was B.

I was saying that if you take the time derivative of a trigonometric function that depends on time you will get (perhaps among other things) another trig function shifted pi/2 radians, so then E and B would not be in phase. So I thought he did not mean what he said, and that instead he meant B = dD/dt.

Instead of saying to me: I don't mean B = dE/dt, or I do mean B = dE/dt, John D has said that B ≠ dD/dt, and also that -dB/dt = curl E. This latter one implies that B ≠ dE/dt, though John D has not come out and said this. The consequence is that I no longer have any idea what he was saying in the first place.

All I ever wanted from him was some clarification on how he could think of B = dE/dt, or an acknowledgement that this is not what he meant, and that he meant something else. If I could have gotten either, I could have tried to understand things more. But we could never get beyond this simple, simple point.

He has said to me over and over that there is only one wave, not two -- but this was never disputed. He also said in his last email that maybe somebody else can explain the issue of space and time derivatives, but I don't see how anybody else could help. I don't need Maxwell's equations explained to me, or how to derive the wave equation from them, or how the wave equation beautifully mixes spatial and temporal derivatives. If somebody else steps in, won't they just affirm Maxwell's equations, or covariant electromagnetism (as you appear to have done), or perhaps their own personal theory? My question involved something he said, about something he thought regarding EM, which to my understanding is far from standard theory because it conceives the EM field geometrically.

If I've made some error in expression, such that nobody can understand what I am saying, I guess I'd like to know. I'd guess I'd also like to know if anyone read John D's email the way I did, or even found my reading plausible, i.e. if my question made sense. It should not be this hard to clear up such basic things.

The whole exchange is on this thread though perhaps a bit buried because the last bits were off list.

Adam

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:18 AM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:
Dear Adam and John D,

Answers.

I should not be spending time answering this (especially early on a Sunday morning) because it is mainly just textbook stuff (even Jackson!). If you want a better description than in this email there is one in my first SPIE paper. This is ( the explanation of what fields are) not weird Williamson stuff- it is just (mostly) standard tensor electromagnetism.

In this field, fields ARE derivatives. Dspace by d time or dspace by d space or d time by d space. Analogies are fun but they mystify beyond a certain point. If taken beyond their terms of validity. It is not just space that stretches - but also time. This must be the case because there are SIX field components and there are not enough ways to stretch 3-space. Simply. Also "stretch" is not a good word. Neither is any standard english word (see how much trouble you get into trying to use the word "see"!). By stretch here I mean take a small bit of space and see how it CHANGES in time (Electric) or take time and see its variation is space (electric) or space and see how it varies in perpendicular space (magnetic). That is think about what the physical parallel of whatever "differentiation" represents ACTUALLY is.

In particular the 4-vector derivative of the 4-vector potential. (please no-one bleat the 4-vector potential is not physical - it is not in Jackson I know - Jackson is not particularly competent in a lot of areas, standard textbook or not).  Jackson does not really seem to get “gauge”.

Define d as 4-derivative (4 terms) and A as 4-potential (4 terms). dA gives 16 terms. 4 of these are scalar 12 are bi-vector. The Lorenz gauge (or radiation gauge) is defined by the scalar part being zero. d.A = 0 (note this is not dA = zero ... the dot (product) matters!). This is just the condition that only field is present. You want to talk about field only - then you are automatically in this gauge. There remain 12 terms. These are such things as the t derivative of the x part and the x derivative of the t part. Take these as a pair. That pair, added together, is the so-called  "x" component of the electric field. It is not really in the x direction (though Jackson thinks it is and so does EVERY textbook I know (if anyone knows differently then please send me a reference - I would love to have it) as it is, equally, in the t direction (and actually in neither since the bi-vector is linearly independent of both x and t). Never mind. In the twelve, there are six PAIRS of such terms. Viz: x by t and t by x, y by t and t by y, z by t and t by z, , x by y and y by x, , y by z and z by y, , z by x and x by z. These are – in the order I wrote them – Ex Ey Ez Bz Bx By (sorry was not thinking normal order (though it is still right handed for B) while typing). Note that Bz is properly defined a being precisely NOT in the z direction. It is dx by dy and dy by dx.

That is – there are 12 terms BECAUSE it is a 4-derivative of a 4-vector. There are six fields BECAUSE, apparently, d time by d space and d space by d time have equivalent effects. Why this is is also simple : if they didn’t space and time would not be conserved in the passage of light through it and that would be kind of inconvenient for our continued existence. Since fields are not fundamental but just derivative, they do not have this power.

Please note: all puns are intended. Always.

Ok the above was just explaining textbook stuff, though most textbook writers seem to have learned 3-electromagnetism and do not appear to really get proper 4-electromagnetism. There is a lot of parroting of manifest bullshit in the field! Obviously, then, a fertile time to plant something new!

Hope this has helped clear up the canoe.

If you want an explanation of where the other 4 terms of the sixteen went, then you do need to come on board with the Williamson weirdness and read all about how this generates rest-mass in my papers.

Regards, John W.
________________________________
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Adam K [afokay at gmail.com<mailto:afokay at gmail.com>]
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2015 12:38 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Qiuhong Hu
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

John D,

Your replies are not really relevant to my (twice repeated) question. I'm trying to understand where the disconnect is. Could it be that you aren't following my question? Would you mind repeating my question back to me? That way I can find out if that's the cause.

It's a very simple question I was asking which is now blown out of proportion, so if we can't put it to sleep swiftly we should just stop. I was persisting in the hope of getting clear and moving on to more substantive issues.

Thanks,

Adam

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 3:59 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
Adam:

The situation is simpler than you think. The spatial derivative of a curve is the slope at some point. At t=0 your canoe is horizontal, and it’s neither tilted nor tilting. Then the wave comes along, and the situation is dynamical like John W was saying. Then when your canoe is tilting, it’s tilted. It can’t be tilting if it’s not tilted. And it can’t be tilted if it’s not tilting. Ying and Yang, two aspects of the same thing, and there’s only one wave there. An electromagnetic wave.

The myth of an electric wave and a magnetic wave is one that totally ignores Maxwell’s unification. It’s like cargo-cult science.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield>=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: 16 October 2015 22:26

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Qiuhong Hu <qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com<mailto:qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

John D,

Talking about canoes doesn't really help me. You mentioned derivatives, which is calculus. You said this:

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.

Consider the moment t = 0 when tilt = 0, an instant before tilt ≠ 0, i.e. we can find a very small epsilon such that at t = epsilon we have tilt ≠ 0.  At t = 0, the rate of change of tilt cannot be 0, or else for  t=epsilon>0 we would also have tilt =0, which contradicts the assumption.

At t=0:

If "tilt denotes E", then E = 0.

If "rate of change of tilt" denotes B, then B ≠ 0

Thus E and B are out of phase.

I don't know what else to say. Maybe when you said the time rate of change of tilt what you meant was the time rate of change of distortion, just the way you said that the spatial rate of change of distortion was tilt? That I could understand. I hope that's what you meant! Otherwise I'm pretty lost.

Cheers,

Adam

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:23 PM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>> wrote:
Adam:

The wave has a shape. You canoe tilts slowly at first, then faster, then slower, and so on.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield>=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of Adam K
Sent: 16 October 2015 20:53

To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Qiuhong Hu <qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com<mailto:qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

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<mailto: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.”

[cid:image001.png at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]

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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield>=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Qiuhong Hu <qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com<mailto: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:

[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<mailto: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.

[cid:image003.gif at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]

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:

[cid:image004.jpg at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]

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.

[cid:image005.png at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]

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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield>=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: qiuhonghu8 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:general-bounces%2Bjohnduffield>=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: qiuhong.hu at physics.gu.se<mailto: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<mailto: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:

[cid:image006.png at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]
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<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>]
Sent: 15 October 2015 14:44
To: John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com<mailto:johnduffield at btconnect.com>>; phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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 Schrodinger, 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. Schrodinger 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 Mobius 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:[cid:image007.jpg at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]
You’ve got a positive curvature followed by a negative curvature. Now make a Mobius strip. It ought to be a  double loop, like a line drawn around a Mobius strip, then you’ve got two things orbiting each other. Then everybody’s happy. But that’s one for another day.

Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Albrecht Giese
Sent: 12 October 2015 22:02
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto: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.
[cid:image008.png at 01D1086E.B59C28F0]
Then once the muon has decayed and a more-or-less massless chargeless neutrino has departed at the speed of light, all you’re left with is light going round and round. We then call it an electron.
As regards symmetrical time dilation, I agree it’s akin to perspective. When we are separated by distance, I say you look smaller than me, and you say I look smaller than you. But we don’t then say whoa paradox! Nor should we say that when we are separated by relative motion. Our time is just the number of reflections on our parallel-mirror light clock<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity>. And the light in that clock either looks like this | or it looks like this /\/\/\/\/\. It’s like the circle and the helix viewed from the side. Special relativity works because of the wave nature of matter, as per the attached The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close.
Regards
John D

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 12 October 2015 19:11
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Nick Bailey <nick at bailey-family.org.uk><mailto:nick at bailey-family.org.uk>; Ariane Mandray <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr><mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>; Anthony Booth <abooth at ieee.org><mailto:abooth at ieee.org>; ARNOLD BENN <arniebenn at mac.com><mailto:arniebenn at mac.com>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Gentlemen,

I detect a tendency to act as though physics is a kind of chocolate box from which one can discard the flavours one does not like. Not so. It all has to fit together and all has to agree with experiment.

Everything - however you mess up your view of it - has to stay consistent with experiment. A safe way of doing this is keeping with some fundamental principles, never known to violated, such as the absolute conservation of energy.

Sorry Chandra, you just cannot "discard Special Relativity" and keep GR, since SR is in GR as an element of it (in the diagonal of the metric tensor). Agree with the standing on shoulders of giants bit though (and with most of the rest of what you say).

Al, Albrecht is right. There is no contradiction - just something you need to understand about the symmetry. You seem to see a contradiction where there is none present. You make some statements as though they are fact which are not fact.
For example you say >>>

"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own."

Yes they can. Yes they must, it has to be symmetric! Saying something does not make it true, however sensible it may seem to the sayer. There is no actual dilation. The existence of another entity somewhere has no bearing on the local properties elsewhere. All is as viewed, all is perspective (good word). If this is what you are on about then we agree.

It seems to me though that is not all those textbook writers that are missing something but you. Both observers DO see each other clocks running slow. The Muon in the muon decay sees the earth as approaching it at near lightspeed  -in its primary stillness and pure stationary state. The Earth it observes is still round - but as round as a pancake. The muon decays in 2.2 microseconds, in its frame, as usual. This layers multiple kilometres into the earth in the earth frame though. This is because the muon thinks the earth is as flat as a pancake. No  contradiction - no problem. If it were two earths colliding, with muons in them, each muon in each earth would see the other earth as flat. Perfectly symmetrically. Both sets of observers (as their last act in this case) would observe muons to live longer when moving fast in their frame.

This is all symmetric. The base reason (for space and time contraction) is explained in the first of my two papers to SPIE (where gamma is derived from photon energy transformations E=H nu) , and arises, simply, from the linearity and conservation of energy. It is just derivative of the Doppler shift of photons. Dead simple. Do the maths! You can discard SR if you like, but you must also lose energy conservation and the relation E=h nu if you do. SR is that relation which maintains energy linearity and conservation of energy for light.  Chandra is right: there are some things that are simply more fundamental than other things. Energy (and hence frequency) is, apparently, more fundamental than space and time scales. You need to get this! Read my paper!

Regards, John (W).
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 5:30 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
Hello Everybody:
Not being a theoretician, I stay away from theoretical arguments. But, my outright opinion is that we should discard Special Relativity; in contrast to ride on the shoulders of GR and QM to develop much better theories for future; which again should be discarded and advanced by the next generations; and so on. GR and QM have captured some kernels of ontological reality. But, they should be advanced to deeper levels of ontological realities by constructing newer theories by re-building the very foundational postulates behind the current theories. It must be continued for a long time to come. It is about time to openly learn to get rid of our mental Messiah Complex and move forward to keep on evolving as thinking species.
In many of my papers [Down load paper:  http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/; summarized in the book, “Causal Physics”, CRC, 2014], I have repeatedly underscored that we must be alert about the parameters we use while building an equation regarding their existence as a physical variable involved in the phenomenon we are modeling. The parameters can be primary (leads the interaction process and measurable); it can be secondary (measurable, but exists only in association with the primary parameter); it can be indistinguishable whether it is primary or secondary because of our limited understanding; it can be a tertiary parameter (human logics needs it as a variable based on the current limited knowledge, etc.), etc. A simple example is ν = c/λ and the associated velocity relation c=√(1/εμ). Here I claim that, from the standpoint of functional “INTERACTION PROCESS”, “ν” is the primary parameter (intrinsic oscillation of the source dictates the frequency). But “c” is also a primary parameter given by intrinsic set of properties of nature; we cannot do anything more than complain about that! Whereas, “λ” is a secondary parameter defined by the first two parameter already mentioned.
      However, to measure “c”, we need to introduce another highly functional and CONCEPTUAL parameter, the “time interval”, δt from our daily experience of v= δx/ δt.
      Let us not forget that we can never directly measure the time interval δt, or its CONCEPTUAL big brother, THE “RUNNING TIME”, “t”. Smart humans figured out how to measure both “δt” and “t” using the real physical parameter, “f”, the frequency of diverse kinds of natural oscillators, be it a pendulum or an atomic clock. We smartly set “δt” =(1/f); “f” being a real physical parameter; we are still “grounded” to gather “evidence based” results!! We measure “f”, invert it to get a time interval “δt” and a longer time interval “Δt”~N.“δt”, where N is big number representing so many complete oscillations of the “Pendulum” we use.  Operationally speaking, “Δt” is the closet we can get to the concept of “running time”.
      The running time “t’, not being a real physical parameter of any physical object within our control; we must not dictate nature as to how she ought behave based upon human invented “running time”. The “running time” cannot be “dilated” or “contracted”. However, the physical frequency of any and all “pendulums” can be “dilated” or “contracted” with appropriate changes in the environment of the “pendulum”.
      There is SPACE, defined as “ether”, by most of the physicists who constructed the foundation of classical physics over centuries. Based upon, modern understanding, I have improved upon the “ether” concept to CTF (Complex Tension Field) that accommodates Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) all across the cosmic space. The NIW removes wave-particle duality and most of the non-causal postulates thrown into QM to make it “nobody understand…”. QM is understandable and it has many realities built into it and hence it can now lead to scientific platform to re-build QM as a higher level theory.
      The definition mass “m” is another parameter that must be eliminated from physics, not because it is unreal like the running time, but because we have known for quite some time that “m” (=E/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] On Behalf Of af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44 AM
To: phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories

Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2015 um 15:13 Uhr
Von: "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de<mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>>
An: af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>, "phys >> Dr. Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>>
Cc: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
Hi Al,

Hi Albrecht:

AK:  From your comments I can't be sure if we disagree (as it seems your are saying) or not.  Some responses below may get this issue.

I do not see any conflict if the situation with synchronized clocks is obeyed as I explained it in my last mail (see below). Those clock assemblies show dilation, but do not present any logical conflict.

AK: An interval for one party cannot BE (appearances are a different matter!) origianl length (per his clock) and forshortened (per partner's clock) at the same location and termination with one end at the same instant.  Obvious!  Even text books point out that the interval is the same in both frames (per +/- Relativity Principle) and show a hyperbolic isocline intersecting the travelr's world line.  Thus, each for himself agrees on the length, and each for the other agrees on a dilated interval.  Where else does this sort of thing happen?  PERSPECTIVE.  Your argument makes sense only if it is taken that the virtual image (or its equivalent in space-time; where it can't be static as in Classical Optics) is dilated/contracted.  If that's what you mean, we agree.  Otherwise, what the texts say is pure contradiction or science fiction mystery.

When looking at a real situation one has to identify the observed object on the one hand with a clock in the example, and on the other hand the observer with another clock or a sequence of other clocks. If we observe a moving particle (like a muon) in a laboratory, than the muon is represented by one clock in the moving system. In this case the observer is represented by a line of clocks positioned along the path of the muon. Because, if we think in an idealized way, we have first to note the time when the muon starts by looking at the clock which is close to the muon at start time. When the muon decays we have for the decay time to look to the clock which is close to the muon at that moment.

AK: In experiments, NO lifetime measurement is made at all!  The data consists entirely of counting the quanttity of muons at a given location.  Neither experiment provides any empirical information whatsoever about the muon generation instant or location---in any frame.  These latter features are surmized or calculated given assumed theory.  Thus, an alternate explanation must only account for the presense of a muon quantity at the measureing location compatible with those ESTIMATED using SR or whatever.

This may look ridiculous as for the observer in the lab all clocks have the same indication. But from the "view" of the muon the clock at rest at the start looks advanced and the clock at the end looks retarded. So the muon has the impression that the time in the lab was slowed down.

AK: If things only "look" to be dilated/contracted, then you are talking about the virtual image; in which case we have agreed from the start.  BUT, with this explantion the muon data cannot be explained.  To begin, the muons don't look or interact with any exterior observers.  Even the exterior observers look only at the number of muons in a location where they do not expect many.  This muon story does not involve two parties for whcih the appearance can be accounted for in terms of projective geometry in either 3-space (classical optics) or 4-space-time (SR hyperoptics, if you will).

As a reminder: The equation for time transformation is:  t' = gamma* (t - vx / 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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "A. F. Kracklauer" <af.kracklauer at web.de><mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>
Betreff: Re: [General] nature of light particles & theories
Hi Al,

about time dilation.

The problem is that time dilation looks inconsistent at the first glance. But it is not. I shall try to explain. It has to do with clock synchronization. (I try to do it without graphics, which would be easier, but a problem in an email.)

Assume that there are two inertial systems, I call them A and B. Both move in relation to each other at some speed v. Now assume that there are clocks distributed equally over both systems. And of course in both systems the clocks are synchronized. Now there comes a relativistic effect. If the observer in A looks to the clocks in B, he finds them desynchronized. The clocks which are in front with respect to the direction of motion are retarded, the ones in the rear advanced. Similar in the other system. If an observer in B looks to the clocks in A, he finds them also desynchronized in the way that the clocks in the front are retarded and the clocks in the rear advanced. Shall I explain why this happens? If you want, I can do it. But next time to keep it short here.

Now, what is dilation in this case?

If the observer in A takes one of the clocks in B and compares it to those clocks in his own system, which is just opposite in sequence, then the clock in B looks slowed down. But if he takes one clock in his own system, A, and compares it to the clocks in B which are opposite in sequence, the clocks in B look accelerated.

Now it looks in a similar way for the observer in B. If the observer in B does the equivalent to the observer in A just described, he will make just the same experience. No contradiction!

In the case of the muons: The muon which will decay is in the position of a clock in the muon-system, and this clock is slowed down as seen from the observer at rest as described above, and this is no violation of symmetry between the systems. If an observer, who moves with the muon, looks to the clocks of the system at rest, he will find those clocks accelerated. No contradiction. Correct?

Albrecht

</a>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepruft.
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<mailto:phys at a-giese.de>

<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>

Click here to unsubscribe

</a>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepruft.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepruft.
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2867 bytes
Desc: image007.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 26044 bytes
Desc: image003.gif
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 106466 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18835 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21549 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 60630 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 10247 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43482 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151020/cd1f736f/attachment-0004.png>