[General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers

Mon Oct 26 02:01:02 PDT 2015

Good morning Al!

My responses interspersed with your interspersions

Hi John:

My responces interspersed below:

Gesendet: Montag, 26. Oktober 2015 um 04:22 Uhr
Von: "John Williamson" <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
An: "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: "'Joakim Pettersson'" <joakimbits at gmail.com>, "'Anthony Booth'" <abooth at ieee.org>, "'Ariane Mandray'" <ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr>
Betreff: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers
Dear Al,

I do not buy this "two versions of relativity" thing.

AL:  Neither do I.  But there clearly are two interpretation of the Lorentz-tranformatiom consequences known as time-dilation & LF-contraction.  One, that they effect the receiver (perspcetive) and two, the sender (ontological).  So much is obvious from the literature.

Agreed. What interests me is not a bunch of people who have not yet thought clearly but to get to the root where we differ.

In reality, there is only one. Proof. Imagine there exists two, both purporting to be a more "true" version of relativity. Either they are in every respect the same, in which case there is only one. Alternatively they differ in some respect. Experiment should then be designed to differentiate between the two. If one agrees, and the other does not, then that which corresponds less closely with experiment should be discarded, leaving only one.

AL: Agreed, but so what?  The required speeds to see these effects are so high that simple, direct experiments are not (yet?) doable.  The doable experiments all involve complex situations from which a chain of assumptions need to be made to draw a conclusion. Thus, we (+scads of others) debate.  Again, only the ontological interpretation is questioned.  NOT SR per se. I see not contraditicon in the rest of it.

So what? I am describing the electron as a lightspeed vortex in momentum space. A single electron has to work in all of the many frames in which the object exists - simultanously! I need to get this or I cannot possibly understand my own theory. That is why!

Also: simple direct experiments ARE do-able. It did not occur to me to extract lifetimes of the billions of pi-mesons I reconstructed during my PhD and correlate how far they went with their Lorentz contraction. I just took it as read. They really do live longer. Experimentally. Could have done the experiment though. Would have taken a LONG time then (my these
is used three months of the, then, worlds biggest, fastest computer). That would be about fifteen minutes on my new phone then!

Now I do not claim that my understanding of relativity is perfect, however I am not aware of any experimental property of space of time with which it is in (experimental) conflict. This includes a perfect understanding, within the narrow framework of SR, of why muon decay and the decay of other particles, is observed to slow.  Now my view of SR has nothing to do with synchronising clocks - on the contrary - so do not paint me with that. I am not concerned with what other people do not (supposedly) get - only with what I do not get and what you do not get.

AL:  Of cousrse all the "experimental" effects have experimental verification!  Totologically.  LF-contraction, for example, has NO experimental verification. But, it is as much a feature of SR and time dilation.

The two are just different aspects of the same thing. One girls space is another mans time.

I think you are simply wrong here. Indestructible physics girl coming in with the muon measures both creation and decay. She measures where it was created (upper atmosphere ( and where it decayed) (in that room with the particle detector). She measures how long it lived (2 microseconds). She, sitting still in her indestructableness, saw a planet (ours) coming towards her at seven nines of the speed of light. She concludes the distance between creation and decay of our hero, the muon, must have been about 2000 feet. That is what the maths tells you. That is what would happen. That is Lorentz contraction - not what you see with light, but what hits you between the eyes. Of course, planet earth would be destroyed along with all humans in the resulting back-yard nuclear explosion that fragmented the earth around miss indestructible - but perhaps we deserved it!

Thus, one is permitted (actually logically obliged) to recognize that SR, however right in some circustance, contains a fundamental open question.

Now I do not (yet) understand why your version of relativity does not do that for you, neither is it my place to explain something I think is well explained elsewhere. So where is it you think we actually disagree, in that I get why clocks slow and you do not? I feel that the confusion you have comes about in thinking that projection is somehow a visual thing (as in your argument about what you thought Terrel and Penrose were on about earlier). Please correct me if I am wrong.

AL:  If there is a cogent explantions for ontological consequences of the L-xforms, please advise me, i.e., citations or something.

Me. I'm feeling a bit lonely though! They are in my two papers to SPIE. Read them. Tell me where you think I am wrong. I will be delighted! Michael Mobley has also published similar stuff, if I remember rightly.

 BTW, I get the clocks slowed, but I also get too many other objects besides the clocks slowed, in principle---but not observed.  SR is mutual, (Relativity Principle) so that per its rules-of-the-game, a cosmic ray anwhere, consdering itself as at rest in its frame, should have slowed all cocks throughout the whole universe!

Not so. Nobody's clocks have gone slow. No one is saying they do. You have read too much into what Terrel and Penrose were ACTUALLY saying.

  In short, SR+ontological interpretation, is not self-consistent, even while if one uses it with skill to a particular sequence of events, it seems to account for observations.  This problem is a symptom of deeper error, which if solved can be expected to contribute to new physics.

I think, as I said before, the error lies in your mind and is only one little revelation away from enlightenment. I do not know how you have managed to convince yourself you do not get this - but you have. You are not the only one.

Now Terrel just uses standard relativity - as he explains in the paper. That contraction is not observed VISUALLY, is neither here nor there. The actual observed relative contraction and slowing of clocks is real. As measured in experiment. They can and do both go slow, symetrically. Just as both observers far away from each other each perceive the other to be small. I really really do not get where you see the contradiction lies.

AL:  As noted above, the contradiction is most evident OUTSIDE the experiment.  What determines what legitimately belongs just to the experiment and what the rest of the universe?  A fully correct theory would not present such a dicotomy.  Like QM and the shifty boundary to the classical world?  These features are flatout symptoms of misunderstnading/incompleteness/contradiction,  who knows?

There is, simply, no contradiction. You see it. I do not see it. I understand why the time difference comes about. Perfectly symmetrically. If indestructible boy had developed a lab on earth - and he had a muon too - he would observe pretty much the same as indestructible girl. Maybe 1.5 microseconds, but that would end the discussion!

I read the Dieks papers for the first time just now. While I do not think he has explained, or got, the whole story (who has!), he makes some interesting points. Amongst others is precisely why, where acceleration is present, the physical origin of the clock slowing arises. You claim he does not get it, but I'm interested in your view of just precisely where you think he falls short.

AL:  Then Dieks point coinsides with AE (Naturwissenschaften, ca. 1917) in which he blamed GR for time dilation.  Since then, any number of critics have pointed out that a touch-tag version of the twin setup in which only info is traded in flyby's between twins, i.e., there are no accelerations involved at all, SR still predicts the same age disparity on return.  Plane text: GR is not the culprit and this AE paper can only be taken as an indightment of his 1905 round trip analysis.  Thus, Dieks' paper (idea in it) is not novel (AE was first) and not correct (subsequent coounterexamples).

AL: From previous (now dated) personal contact I know that Dieks has much to say, some of it insightful, but none of it contributes to the resolution of the major challenges facing physics theory.  And, granted parochially, I have a hard time with those who fail to see what to me were always obvious clefts in logic and reasonableniss in QM & SR.  Always seemed to me their position was more sociolgically dertemined than honest intelletual persuit of understanding.  Among technologists this consideration is gratuitous, "who cares if the damn bridge doesn't fall, that's all we'r after!"

I care. I am an engineer! Apart from that I agree with much of what you say. I also see lots of holes in Diek’s logic. I wonder if we see the same set of holes? Now that would be interesting!

AL: I hope my views are not overly vested with ad hominum emotion.  While I can't avoid it totally, in fact I'm more fired up by the objective, professional dispute.  People come and go; electrons are forever!

Al, I am going to go personal. Me too. You want to really get to the bottom of things. Qudos and deepest respect. This is proper intellectual thinking of the first class and the first order. There are so many things I have assumed in my career and then had fixed by someone coming along and showing me wrong. That person, for me, was usually Martin (thanks mate!). You are one of the few in the group who have who have taken me on, and dared to express where you think me wrong. David is another, John D another, Chip a third, Richard – of course and Chandra has been there too. This is what we all need: people strong enough to both argue – and gracious enough to concede if required.  Naturally, so far I think you were pretty much all wrong (where you differed with my view) in most respects – but the case where I now know I was wrong (David- on phat photons) is something to treasure in my development. Thank you David. You are my kind of men. Say what you want. Please hit me everyone! Calm and civilised would be a bonus. Not needed though. I prefer straight to the point. You have not offended me – none of you. I know the deep argument is about the ideas and our shared passion for them. I am anyway not easily offended. As Viv says: if there is anywhere you think me wrong, please let me be the first (or at least one of the first!) to know.

AL;  regards

Regards back, John W.

________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of af.kracklauer at web.de [af.kracklauer at web.de]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:05 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; 'Joakim Pettersson'; 'Anthony Booth'; 'Ariane Mandray'
Subject: Re: [General] [SPAM?] Re: [SPAM?] Re: research papers