[General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective realities
Albrecht Giese
genmail at a-giese.de
Thu Jul 7 07:23:03 PDT 2016
Hi Chip,
you say "The mathematical basis for these two differing forms of
relativity have some striking similarities, but also have some major and
significant differences." Can you please give some examples of these
differences?
Einstein's SR is a mathematical formalism which (in my understanding)
does not care about the physical causes. But formally it works. Take the
similar case of quantum mechanics. Also that theory gives us a
mathematical formalism without almost any relation to physics. (True
that some persons say that it is also physics, but that is in my
understanding caused by some kind of brain wash.)
There is one specific point which causes some logical paradoxes with
Einstein. That is the general use that the Lorentz transformation is
taken as a transformation of an absolute time scale and an absolute
spatial extension. If on the other hand one deduces relativity by the
considerations of Lorentz and Larmor, one would not have the idea to do
so, but rather use this transformation in a differential form. So to
determine time /differences /and length /differences/. If one does this,
apparent paradoxes like the twin case immediately disappear.
Some years ago the director of the German Einstein-Institute has given a
talk at a conference where he addressed just this. His advice was, to
transform time /differences /and length /differences /rather (integral)
time and position. That was the right way in my view, but it seems that
this has not reached many colleagues.
Albrecht
Am 06.07.2016 um 21:27 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Thank you, and I understand the perspective you have voiced.
>
> The purpose is not to invent a new name, and the notion is not new.
> But the basis is quite important if we are to really understand the
> nature, cause, and behavior which the real form of relativity in
> nature imposes on fields, waves, and matter.
>
> Laying the proper foundation may well make the difference in being
> able to solve the problems and understand the puzzles. Things which
> are considered by us to be “small” or “insignificant” errors in the
> general basis, can easily become major obstacles as we pursue deeper
> understanding.
>
> By analogy, a small course error early in a journey can result in not
> reaching your destination at all.
>
> There is so much more to this than merely a difference in terminology.
> The mathematical basis for these two differing forms of relativity
> have some striking similarities, but also have some major and
> significant differences.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 2:06 PM
> *To:* Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>; phys at a-giese.de; 'Nature of
> Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v objective
> realities
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> I fully agree to what John Bell has written about relativistic
> phenomena. I had the same ideas 17 years ago when I started to think
> about relativity. Then I learned that this way is called (at least in
> Germany) the "Lorentzian interpretation of relativity".
>
> So, is it only a matter of words? Should we invent a new word for it?
> I do not feel that this would be practical. If the engineers who work
> on the GPS system say that they have to take relativity into account,
> everyone knows what it means. So, why invent a new name or notion?
>
> We are so far here that even the leading professors for relativity and
> gravitation say that the Lorentzian relativity is a possible way as
> well as the Einsteinian relativity, so equivalent regarding the
> results. - They still say that they find the Einsteinian way
> mathematically more elegant than the Lorentzian (where I personally
> strictly disagree). But the question again: Should we really invent a
> new name if everyone, the follower of Einstein and those of Lorentz,
> know what one means if he /she speaks about "relativity"?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 05.07.2016 um 20:11 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> Hi Albrecht
>
> Lorentz had worked all this out before Einstein’s SR. Lorentz
> based his observations and conclusions on the behavior of waves
> moving at a fixed velocity through a fixed medium.
>
> Lorentz transformations are required if matter is made of the same
> light speed energy light is made of.
>
> John Stuart Bell said this regarding relativity…, /“I would say
> that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to
> relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and
> Poincar´e thought that there was an aether – a preferred frame of
> reference – but that our measuring instruments were distorted by
> motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the
> aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred
> frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference
> (some) things do go faster than light.”,” Behind the apparent
> Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which
> is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and
> Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is
> not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an
> aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations
> occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion
> through the aether – that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”/
>
> SR postulates that all inertial frames are completely and
> symmetrically relative. But there is no cause given for this
> basis, it is based solely on philosophy. The “relativity” that
> Chandra, Grahame, and I have been discussing does show a basis and
> cause. It is simply based on the inevitable results of matter
> being made of the same light-speed energy that light is made of.
>
> Such an endeavor can be legitimately called a scientific pursuit.
> In contrast to SR. The facts of the requirements for
> transformations for rapidly moving bodies were well known before
> SR, and SR is not a requisite for those facts being valid. If we
> look at these issues from the causal basis mentioned, many of the
> perplexing or puzzling things about SR disappear.
>
> So, while I would not have stated it in quite the same way, I must
> agree with Chandra that SR is not scientific, is not even physics.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Albrecht Giese
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:00 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
> objective realities
>
> Chandra,
>
> you say: "SR is not even Physics". Don't understand why.
>
> If we keep a little distance to the more mystical foundations of
> Einstein ("space-time"), then relativity is easy and simple. SR
> comprises the following facts:
>
> 1.) Oscillations slow down at motion
> 2.) Fields contract at motion
>
> Fact 1.) can easily be measured and easily be understood with
> regard to its cause.
> Fact 2.) can also easily be understood with regard to its cause;
> the experimental proof is indirect but existent.
>
> All the rest is quite simple logic (like the constancy of the
> measured "c").
>
> That's all, and what is your specific reason to deny it?
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 05.07.2016 um 02:27 schrieb Roychoudhuri, Chandra:
>
> Many thanks, Grahame, for the excellent complement on the
> philosophy of thinking, which I have been developing for over
> several decades. I am now in the process of applying that mode
> of thinking (Evolution Process Congruent Thinking) to
> political economy and the politics of money-driven elected
> governments, the model of the West, being imposed on the rest
> of the world.
>
> I will read carefully your thinking on Relativity (SR). I
> think we are on the same page. SR is not even Physics. In
> contrast, QM has a lot of valuable physics (captured some
> realities) that will give us guidance to evolve forward
> towards a next higher level theory.
>
> Chandra.
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]*On
> Behalf Of *Dr Grahame Blackwell
> *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2016 7:02 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
> objective realities
>
> Hi Richard, Chip, Chandra (et al),
>
> I have attached at Richard’s request a copy of the first 10
> pages of my book (after index etc); this comprises the first
> section of my book, the Introduction. I believe you’ll see
> from this my philosophy and my objectives in undertaking my
> own line of scientific research. This is not to identify or
> define a suitable model for a photon-formed electron – though
> that is to a limited extent an inevitable by-product of my
> investigations – but rather to resolve what I have come to
> see, over some years, as inconsistencies, incompleteness or
> scope for further understanding in the generally-accepted
> model of physical reality. [Note that, whilst holding firmly
> to scientific principles, this book is intended to be
> comprehensible for the most part by non-specialists; this
> introduction should be read with that in mind.]
>
> Chandra, I was most impressed (I might even say ‘excited’) by
> your paper presented last year at the SPIE conference, which
> you have just circulated (I found myself saying “yes!” out
> loud several times whilst reading it). I’d like to think that
> the contents of my book are in the spirit of the
> outward-looking ‘Perpetual Scout’ scientific approach that you
> advocate*; I have for some time been concerned by the attitude
> of science that appears to take the line: “We’ve got it all
> correct to date, now we just need to fill in the fine detail”
> (whilst happily accepting the unexplained ‘fact’ of Special
> Relativity and the unexplained apparent serendipity of Quantum
> Mechanics). I’m also very enthused by your view that we need
> to be thinking NOW about how we can ensure that we’re still
> around beyond our parent star’s main sequence; alignment with
> cosmic evolution, rather than trying to force our will on it,
> seems to be a patently obvious strategy.
>
> [* The concept of reverse engineering both physical reality
> and the evolutionary process is one that I believe has been
> central to my research.]
>
> Richard, no matter how much I try I can't find any common
> ground between our respective understandings of the terms
> ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ as applied to material reality.
> For me the term ‘subjective’ is crystal clear in its meaning:
> it relates to a situation, event or scenario as experienced by
> an individual or group (possibly a very large group) of
> individuals – including ‘experience by proxy’ through
> instrumentation. In this situation the sensors of this/those
> individual(s) – including possibly electromechanical sensors –
> mediate that experience and thereby provide input to (i.e.
> variation of) that experience over and above the actuality of
> the (objective) event or scenario being experienced.
>
> By contrast the term ‘objective’ refers to the object – the
> situation, event or scenario itself. With regard to that
> object it matters not one iota what people think – even a
> great number of highly intelligent people – it will not
> re-shape itself to conform to their thoughts. For example,
> everyone in the world could think that the earth was flat, it
> would make absolutely no difference to the shape of our planet
> – but it *would* make a great deal of difference with respect
> to their effectiveness in navigating from one place to another!
>
> If a mathematician proposed that one plus one was equal to
> two, would you dismiss that as just a personal philosophy of
> mathematics? I’m not in any way suggesting that my view of
> reality is the right one, or the only possible one – but I
> *am* absolutely adamant that if we regard subjective
> impressions as convertible to objective truth just by sheer
> weight of numbers then the future of science is doomed.
>
> That’s a major reason why I don’t participate in discussing
> the pros and cons of various models of the electron, as you
> say you’d wish me to – it’s not actually possible for me to
> separate ‘my philosophy’, as you call it, from my perception
> of what constitutes a better or less good model. You’ve
> proposed (below) that I “point out any defects or limitations
> in different models” – surely that’s what I’ve tried to do,
> totally consistently, in a logical way that hopefully doesn’t
> give offence? But it seems that’s what you object to, since
> you regard my approach as simply my [personal] philosophy of
> science and therefore (presumably) not acceptable as a valid
> contribution to this discussion.
>
> I’ll continue to participate in this debate, in the only way
> that makes sense to me (and hopefully makes some sense to some
> others). If that doesn’t work for you, fine, give it a miss –
> but I’m afraid I can’t set aside what I see as facts just to
> join in a conversation on any model that, for what seem to me
> to be very good reasons, I can’t believe in.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:*Richard Gauthier <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>
> *To:*Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *Sent:*Sunday, July 03, 2016 3:01 PM
>
> *Subject:*Re: [General] double photon cycle, subjective v
> objective realities
>
> Hello Grahame,
>
> You seem unwilling to present the first few pages of
> your book to help give us more background and context to
> your particle model and approach. So I think I’ll pass for
> now on commenting on your distinction between subjective
> and objective realities, which is more of a statement of
> your philosophy of science, and how to know what is “real”
> in physics. Physicists try to interpret, understand and
> predict aspects of the physical world, based on ideas,
> concepts, mathematics, models and objective physical
> measurements and observations. I think we are all engaged
> in this in one way or another, despite any differences in
> our philosophies about the nature of reality.
>
> I think your model of the electron and other particles
> should be separable from your particular philosophy of
> science, so that others who may not share your philosophy
> of science, as well as those who do, may be able to decide
> if your model is useful or better than other physical
> models, for “doing physics”. One way is to look at the
> models themselves quantitatively and to compare and
> contrast one model with other models to see how well these
> models (all relating to photons and particles in our
> discussion group) stand up to critical scrutiny as well as
> to experimental support. I think that’s partly what this
> discussion group is about. I hope you are willing to join
> in this effort, to point out any defects or limitations in
> different models, to encourage improvement of weaker
> models, and to acknowledge any strengths in these or other
> models, since none of them is perfect.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys 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>
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> Image removed by sender.
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160707/8d4d1614/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160707/8d4d1614/attachment.jpeg>
More information about the General
mailing list