[General] STR twin Paradox

Thu Aug 24 00:07:00 PDT 2017

Dear Richard,

Indeed Einstein was not first, and indeed it should be Minkowski space. Also, considering ctau (ctau = sqrt(tsquared – xsquared-ysquared-zsquared), for the unitiated) is also very interesting, and leads to certain simplifications. The first thing one loses, however, on making the switch, is the possibility of deriving the Maxwell equations as the base 4-vector differential acting on the ct,x,y,z basis. The reason for this is that the Minkowski algebra is not a division algebra. There are regions, other than zero, where division itself is undefined, one of these being anywere on a lightline such that ctau is zero.

This problem has led many led many - see Penrose book “the road to reality” for example – to discard Minkowski algebra as “not well behaved mathematically”. One striking case where “mere maths” misdirects from an interesting line of enquiry.  I would nonetheless recommend that all of you read the Penrose book. It is quite brilliant further and answers most, if not pretty much all of the “questions” arising in this forum.

It was the study of division in a Minkowski algebra,  and of its effects, that led Martin and I to five years work on the paper initially entitled, "On division and the algebra of reality". We have submitted versions of the paper twice, and had it rejected twice (on the grounds that it has all been done before (not true at all!), or that there was no practical physical application (also manifestly not true)). We are still working on that paper, though it taking second place for other work that Martin and I have to finish.

So a little bit yes, but mostly no is the answer. It does make things a bit simpler as it does some of the projection to 3D, but loses some of the more sophisticated theoretical basis of the full 4D approach.

Regards, JohnW.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Richard Gauthier [richgauthier at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:08 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Cc: Darren Eggenschwiler; Pete Delaney; Innes Morrison; rgk1 at york.ac.uk; Mark, Martin van der
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi John (and everyone),
   Thanks for your insightful inputs and clarifications about your own way(s) of thinking.

You wrote: In this paper (your paper) an attempt will be made to avoid any superfluous complexity, keep everything possible continuous and linear and keep the a-priori basis as simple as possible. Accordingly, all that will be introduced are four vector basis “directions” in space and time, their properties under multiplication and division, and a rest mass-energy term.

I want to remind you (and others) that the concept of spacetime was the creation of Minkowski and not Einstein. Minkowski graphed ct as the orthogonal time axis and x,y,z as the three orthogonal spatial axes, as you also seem to be doing in your quote above. But as I proposed in my article “Relativity Simplified”  at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research and as it turned out several others proposed previously and independently (see euclideanrelativity.com<http://euclideanrelativity.com>), if you plot s=c tau (the spacetime interval quantity) rather than the time coordinate ct as the fourth orthogonal dimension and x,y,z as the other three orthogonal dimensions, you simplify the Minkowski spacetime diagram approach to becoming pythagorean rather than hyperbolic diagrams. You also obtain (as I show in my article) the corresponding mass-energy-momentum diagrams corresponding to the mass-energy-momentum relations in helical models of the relativistic electron composed of a photon-like object (such as those of Vivian, Grahame, Chip and myself, and perhaps in your latest electron model as well), as well as explaining the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 as a pythagorean momentum relationship.

So I am wondering if your four-vector basis “directions” approach would be modified and simplified by the c tau, x,y,z 4-vector approach, as compared with the standard ct,x,y,z approach. The former (c tau) approach simplifies the diagraming of relativistic space-time relationships and can assist in particle modeling. And the concept of “spacetime” itself could actually be modified by the ctau,x,y,z  approach as compared to the ct,x,y,z approach of Minkowski, which was incorporated into Einstein’s general theory of relativity in order to retain in general relativity, as I understand it, the (ds)^2 = (c dt)^2 -(dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 invariance relationship (where ds = c dtau), which however also remains in the c tau diagrammatic approach.

   Richard

On Aug 23, 2017, at 8:28 PM, John Williamson <John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk<mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>> wrote:

Hello Darren, Chip, Grahame and everyone,

So, coming back to Chandra’s questions on what has come out of the discussion:

It has been an interesting perspective for me to participate in discussions with group. It seems that nearly everyone is of accord here that “everything is made of light” is a reasonable statement, especially when applied to elementary particles such as the electron. The old paper of Martin and mine on “Is the electron a localized photon”, is taken on board and accepted almost as an accepted matter of fact. Usually, elsewhere, this is the aspect I needed to argue upon, at least until Martin and I started to develop our extended theory of electromagnetism in the noughties. In this respect I feel treated in some respects as an old guy who had a pretty good idea a couple of decades ago, but is a bit out of touch with some of the modern developments. This is not a complaint: I quite like this position for a change!

On the other hand the new theory, and the points made in the four papers Martin and I submitted to the 2015 conference have not been discussed at all, pretty much, in this forum. Let me illustrate with specific examples.

Though the series was ostensibly on the nature of the photon, the presentation of a fully relativistic photon wave-function, based on an extension of the Maxwell equations, went down like a lead balloon. What a surprise!

On the new theory, we have learned nothing at all over and above where we were already from the discussion in this group, except for some aspects in discussion with people we were already involved with, such as Viv, Nick Green and Richard. There have been a few interesting discussions at a decent level, such as that with Al, which were enjoyable but never properly resolved. There was also the interesting issue of Alex’s theories, though these are both perpendicular and parallel to our way of thinking: he goes with extending gravitation, we with extending electromagnetism. Further there have been a few notable references to the external literature of which I was unaware such as the existence of Phat photons (thanks David).

The lack of any engagement on making progress out of the present “dark ages of physics” (which I and a few others keep banging on about) is why Martin gave up and jumped out a year ago. Our role in the discussion has been, to my growing astonishment, merely to defend standard physics as-it-is. In other words, to act as a lecturer.  I would like to be a student too!

Having said that there is much that I have learned, some on how to communicate and some on “what not to do”. It is interesting how hard it is to get things across even to intelligent people who are pre-disposed to listen. One should be careful using analogies to describe the complicated: folk will understand the analogy, but not the complicated and then argue with the analogy! People do not usually argue with each other, but tend to form a view of what the other is saying and then argue with that. In this respect they are then only arguing with themselves.

The lesson is: one should be careful not to ascribe views to others they would disagree with. Now I am terrifyingly hopeless in following these precepts myself, as I will now illustrate with respect to some of thing said recently by others. What a hypocrite!

Now a completely different point I have been wanting to bring up for some time but have not found the courage to do so. I’m going to pick on one or two people I (hope I) know will be resilient enough to stay friends …

Firstly Grahame, you are quite wrong to suggest that special relativity claims that there is a “metaphysical property of space-time that results in objects BEING (not just appearing) different lengths just because observers are in different states of motion and two clocks BOTH going slower than each other.”
It is precisely the Lorentz view that suggests things actually shrink with reference to their motion through the Aether. The Einstein view, at least as expressed in the principle of general covariance, is that everything is a matter of perspective, just as Darren suggests, and that everything and every inertial frame is equivalent.

As it happens I subscribe to neither view entirely. For me, there is an absolute, local reference frame and the local properties of space and time not only matter, but are crucial to understanding the nature of the Universe. Within any local frame, however, because everything scales with the properties of light, including the local scales of any rulers and clocks it can be shown that there is no local measurement one can make (within this framework) that will tell you whether or not you are in the one and only inertial frame at the centre of your apparent universe.
That remains true, of course, until one looks out of your spherical window (the one at the front of your spaceship) at the (not local) universe outside. Here it is relatively easy to establish your motion with respect to the external universe- just look at the blue and red shift! The position  is then a derived extension of the principle of general covariance locally, while denying it globally.

Now coming on to Chip to illustrate this, he said in a recent post:

“So John, my friend.  You may choose to disregard the suggestion that the all motion is relative portion of SRT is in error. We all have our theoretical preferences.

I seldom make predictions, but I will make one now.
It may not happen within our lifetimes, but I feel that experiment will prove that all motion is not relative, and that motion is actually relative to the background of space.”

Hey, I agree. Also I do not think one needs to wait – it is easy to do it already and has been for some time. Also you said in a slightly older post responding to Chandra’s request:

“From John Williamson I learned to take another look at the evidence, and to consider that all particles and fields are made of disturbances in space.  This may or may not have been what John intended, but that is what reading his and Martin van der Mark’s work conveyed to me.”

Firstly, thank you. Secondly I am not at all unhappy as to your conclusions. Here is what I said from the beginning in my introduction to the 2015 “electron” paper submitted to SPIE in 2015. Look at it!

“A companion paper has outlined many aspects of the theoretical basis to be used here.1 Space-time, at its simplest, is described by four and only four “linear” degrees of freedom. Within this space-time exists energy encapsulated in light and material particles: photons, leptons and hadrons. It has been fashionable in science, for the past half-century or so, to take complicated starting positions involving an extensive a-priori mathematical and conceptual structure to describe these objects. Complex groups have been taken as the starting points of many theories too numerous to mention. Further, there has been a tendency to wish to “quantise” everything from the beginning. It should seem self-evident that, in doing that, one loses the possibility of finding out why such things may be quantised at all. Putting in a quantisation or a symmetry observed experimentally as a starting axiom has some merit of course, but is a poor starting choice if one wants to understand the origins of that quantisation or symmetry. In this paper an attempt will be made to avoid any superfluous complexity, keep everything possible continuous and linear and keep the a-priori basis as simple as possible. Accordingly, all that will be introduced are four vector basis “directions” in space and time, their properties under multiplication and division, and a rest mass-energy term.
”

In other words ALL that goes into the theory is space, time and root energy. Take out space and time and all one is left with, literally, is a theory isomorphic to the mathematics of real numbers. Good stuff, but not exactly new! Put space and time in and one gets all of the Maxwell equations, four new equations relating quantum spin and charge, a DERIVATION of the transformation equations of special relativity, a fully relativistic wave-function for the photon with TWO phases (hence dealing with Chandra’s (correct) objection to simple wave-functions not dealing with more than one “phase”. A new solution of the electron and positron. A method of calculating the elementary charge from first principles, an understanding of the nature of fermions and hence an understanding of the mechanism of the exclusion principle. Once again, all that goes in is space, time and root energy. No principle of covariance. No ‘elementary” particles (they come out). No SU(2), no SU(3), no E8, no quarks, no gluons, no Higgs. Just space, time and root energy. Not a bad set of results for something just quite so simple.

So, you see. You have projected onto me that I view general covariance as a starting point. No way! I have derived an extension of it, from first principles, within a deeper paradigm. So here you are, making up what you think I think and then arguing against that. And here I am, making up what I think you think I think and arguing against that.

Bad news for everyone: I am a fully trained 21st century physicist. This means I have no problem whatsoever in thinking many contradictory things together at the same time. Even I do not know what I think I think: the rest of you have no chance!

Cheers, JohnW.
________________________________
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 Darren Eggenschwiler [darren at brandcalibre.com<mailto:darren at brandcalibre.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 10:33 PM
To: Chip Akins; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Viv Robinson
Cc: Darren Eggenschwiler; Innes Morrison; Mark, Martin van der
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Chip,

Fair warning: I'm significantly out of my depth in this crowd, and that may become clear. However, I utterly adore reading this ongoing discussion and for the first time have a tiny morsel to contribute:

A vague friend of mine recently introduced me to the principle of explosion, and consequently paraconsistent logic (PL), and your example sounds very much like an example of it. When I first heard it, I was immediately reminded of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's cat:

Clock A ran slower than Clock B = true
Clock B ran slower than Clock A = true
Therefore
I am a time traveling space octopus = true

ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet

Perhaps someone who is familiar with the mathematics of PL could make a useful link between SRT and and whatever the useful part of PL is?

Otherwise I'd suggest: each of the premises above is true for each observer, perhaps we are each in our own universes as defined by what is relative to us.

Thank you for including me in this wonderful thread.

- Darren

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 at 20:40, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Vivian

I would like to return to a discussion briefly which was ensuing a couple of months ago.

Thank you for the careful explanation offered in the email below.

However the point I was attempting to make a couple of months ago, deals only with the concept that all motion is relative in SRT.

So let us set up an experiment which excludes all effects of GRT, acceleration, gravity etc. and only evaluates this notion of SRT that all motion is relative.

We have two identical clocks, moving relative to each other.
For the sake of this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of synchronizing their clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to start recording data at the same time, like when each reaches a predetermined distance from the other. (All Doppler effects accounted for.)
An observer with clock A thinks clock B is moving.
An observer with clock B thinks clock A is moving.
After the “relative” motion has occurred for some time, the two clocks pass by in very close proximity to each other and exchange their data.

The observer with clock A assumes the reading from Clock B will indicate that time has passed more slowly for B than for A.  The observer with clock B assumes the reading from Clock A will indicate that time has passed more slowly for A than for B. Both cannot be correct.

Clearly because of this, there IS A PARADOX, and that paradox is undeniably embedded in the notion that all motion is relative. Bringing in arguments from other theories, and proclaiming that there is no paradox does not dismiss this logical problem inherent in SRT’s notion that all motion is relative.

If one clock is more stationary with regards to the CMB it is likely that is the one which will be more correct in their prediction of the clocks readings.
They cannot both be correct.
If they cannot both be correct, then all motion is NOT relative, but time is slowed for objects moving relative to space itself.

Chip

From: Viv Robinson [mailto:viv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 10:44 PM
To: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>

Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <darren at makemeafilm.com<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com>>; 'Innes Morrison' <innes.morrison at cocoon.life<mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life>>; 'Mark, Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi All,

The best way to sort out a problem is to understand the physics behind a situation and then use mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect attributed to it. Lets look at the so called "twin paradox".

Two observers O1 and O2 are next to and at rest with each other. Both have accurate atomic or whatever clocks. O2 is accelerated to speed v, travels for time t at v, is decelerated to rest wrt to O1, accelerated to v towards O1, again travels for a time and finally is decelerated to rest next to O1. They compare clocks. O2’s clock has slowed down wrt O1. Yet O2 has observed O1 traveling at v. So why doesn’t O1’s clock slow down wrt to O2?

The answer is the acceleration. To accelerate O2, a force is applied to it. The combination of force and distance adds energy to O2 that is not added to O1. That energy is added to O2 in terms of kinetic energy or momentum change. No matter how small is the energy that is added, it is split between mass and velocity and causes a time dilation. They are the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections. That is something that O2 experiences and O1 does not experience.

The fundamental difference that O2’s acceleration makes is that its mass increases as well as its velocity. Its time wrt O1  decreases. So while O2 may see O1 accelerating away, O1 is not the one experiencing the acceleration. Therefore O1 is not the observer whose mass is increasing and whose time is dilating. That is the physical reason why there is no "twin paradox".

Time dilation due to acceleration and deceleration (calculable from gravity equivalence) appears to be cumulative. Acceleration effects may make a difference if O2 is rapidly accelerated to v and then immediately rapidly decelerated to rest wrt O1, followed by a rapid acceleration to v and an immediate deceleration to rest next to O1. O2 will show SRT time dilation effect equal to the integrated effect of its relativistic velocity wrt O1. Those interested could calculate the acceleration effect from gravity equivalence and see how they compare.

Apart from that the time delay O2 experiences is because of the velocity multiplied by time effect. When the time traveled is much longer than the acceleration time, the time delay experienced by O2 will, for all practical purposes, be due to the SRT correction.

The above has described the physics of the so called “twin paradox”. There is no paradox. O2’s time slows relative to O1 because O2 is the one that has been accelerated. Einstein was correct on both situations, the relativistic time correction and that they are only experienced by the accelerated observer.

Of course you are free to disagree with the above. However if you feel compelled to point out that it is wrong, it is best done by forwarding the physics that makes it wrong and then present the mathematics required to show the magnitude of the physical effect. Then show how it agrees with experimental observation. In doing that remember that experimentalist using accurate atomic clocks have many times verified the SRT time corrections.

There are two ways by which the SRT corrections can be applied. One is that there is an absolute zero reference somewhere in space and all corrections are applied from it. The other is that the SRT corrections are a property of any particle moving wrt another. I have previously published some calculations that suggest that the rotating or toroidal photon model for the structure of matter is responsible for the SRT corrections of matter. With all sub atomic particles, proton, neutron electron and neutrino having a rotating or toroidal photon structure, the SRT corrections are automatically inbuilt into every particle. As such I am happy that Einstein’s SRT corrections will always apply.

Remember that all linear motions are relative to the observer. However accelerations and circular motions are absolute. O1 and O2 may start out at 0.5 c wrt O3. O2 may be decelerated to rest wrt O3, remain at rest wrt O3 and then accelerated back to 0.5c to return to rest next to O1. O1 will still see O2’s clock as having lost time. O3 will see an entirely different situation. But remember O3 can only see what is happening to O1 and O2 by using photons. O3’s time dilation observations of O1 and O2 must include the SRT corrections as well as Doppler effect and distance changes. Complex but calculable to those interested.

Chip, regarding your analogy of A and B. At one stage in their life they were at the same place at the same time, even if it was only at birth. To find out which will be the younger you need to establish their background. If A remained at rest and B was accelerated away from A, B will be the younger when they both meet up again. If they both travelled away with equal accelerations, velocities and time they will both appear the same age. Both would be younger than a person born at the same place at the same time and remained at that place when they all met up again.

I am quite happy to accept that all linear motion is relative. It agrees with SRT and experiment. I am also satisfied that the rotating or toroidal photon model for an electron (and other particles) gives a physical description that matches both SRT and observation.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 15 June 2017 at 12:43:26 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>) wrote:
Hi John

Yes.  When I used the large circle example, I was afraid that someone would divert the conversation from Special Relativity.  I suppose I deserve that.

Back to Special Relativity.

One Twin (Twin B) is moving at a constant highly relativistic velocity toward Twin A. Twin B thinks Twin A is moving, Twin A thinks Twin B is moving. When twin B arrives at Twin A’s location, Twin A expects Twin B to be younger, Twin B expects Twin A to be younger.  Mutually exclusive conditions (if all motion is relative). So all motion is not relative. Simple, even for post grads, like you and me.

I welcome constructive, logical, suggestions, but please refrain from condescension, it does not help the cause.

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:19 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Cc: Darren Eggenschwiler <darren at makemeafilm.com<mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com>>; Innes Morrison <innes.morrison at cocoon.life<mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life>>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Chip,

What happens for a circulating (near) lightspeed object is, not that local time or length changes, but the ring appears to get smaller for the participant - shrinking to zero length ring at lightspeed. Clocks onboard act normally. They will feel, however, feel an acceleration unless in free-fall, which can occur for a curved space -time or round the edge of the universe, for example. You really need to expand your thinking to General relativity (which is, of course, itself not the most general of all the possible proper descriptions of space and time, as it has only a simple scalar curvature) to get a proper grip on this.

Someone mentioned a muon storage ring. the stored Muons decay normally according to themselves, but see a much smaller ring. They also feel a permanent transverse acceleration. The is also (synchrotron)radiation, but this is from the system ring+muons, rather than from the muons themselves.

Most of the rest of the discussion on this has been at a level usually treated at undergraduate level. Grahame is right: you will not find a mathematical contradiction in special relativity. All this stuff has been done before.

Hope this helps,

Cheers, John.

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 Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:12 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
Hi Grahame

The reason for the huge circle in my thought experiment, is so that the velocity can be very close to c, causing relativistic time dilation, and that velocity dependent time dilation would dominate the experiment, while acceleration induced time variation would be far less significant.

And I agree with you that space possesses a reference rest frame where time is not retarded in any of these or similar circumstances.

But the important thing, I believe, is that all motion cannot be relative, and there cannot be full reciprocity regarding the effects of motion.  For if all motion is relative, then there is just no solution which satisfies the equations and does not present a paradox. If all motion is relative, then twin A will be younger than twin B, and twin B will be younger than twin A. But of course these are mutually exclusive answers, so all motion is not relative.

So as it stands, if I am reading the comments correctly, you, me, Chandra, and Albrecht, agree that there is a more Lorentzian form of relativity, (which I feel is caused by matter being made of confined light-speed energy) which is the proper physical form of relativity in or universe.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments!!!

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:09 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi chip,

I'm 100% with you on this!
I really don't understand the notion that 'the universe is an observer effect' - it makes no sense to me whatsoever.  By the same token, the notion that 'collapse of the wavefunction' is precipitated by observation/measurement is to me quite fanciful - for me there is a much more straightforward explanation for the phenomenon referred to as 'wavefunction collapse' (which I don't believe to be a collapse of any kind!)

I'm sorry for not responding to your previous post sooner; I was planning to send a comment, but have been fully occupied with other pressing matters of late.  My observation relates to your thought experiment in which each 'twin' sees the other as travelling in a large circle at high speed.  For me there is no paradox at all in this from the SR perspective (though like you, I am of the firm opinion that there exists one unique objectively static rest-frame [subject to Hubble expansion, of course], all other 'rest frames' are in motion in absoolute terms).

If one twin is seen by the other as moving in a circle - however large - but regards themself as being at rest, then they will instead experience a force which the other twin will regard as acceleration towards the centre of the circle but that they themself will regard as influence of a gravitational field (if you doubt this, just posit an accelerometer on their ship with a readout that can be seen by, or communicated to, their twin).  That influence will be directly comparable with the centripetal force of constant-speed circular motion and will be regarded by that twin as causing identical time dilation for them c.f. one outside the influence of that field.  They will therefore expect their OWN clock to be slowed by an exactly corresponding amount from the perspective of one not subject to that 'gravitational field' - so they will fully expect their clock and that of their twin to be retarded by a precisely-equal degree, and so that both clocks would show identical times on comparison when again passing each other.

[As a point of detail, making it a very BIG circle in no way reduces the validity of this analysis, it simply requires more accurate instrumentation - as is always the case with regard to details of SR & GR.]

As I said in my previous comment, it very much appears to me that SR is 100% self-consistent mathematically.  This does not make it correct as a representation of physical reality - but trying to discredit SR by attempting to find a flaw in the math is to me a non-starter!  SR will ONLY be shown to be an incorrect assumption (in respect specifically of equivalence of all inertial reference frames) by consideration of the energetic formation of particles (which can also be approached indirectly by way of the Energy-Momentum Relation).

[Another point of detail: I have included a fairly exhaustive analysis of Hasselkamp et al's experiment in my book: this shows that even so-called '2nd order Doppler effect' cannot be used to detect motion of the earth wrt the objective universal rest state, no matter how accurate readings or instrumentation.  SR is a VERY tightly-meshed cage!]

Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Chandra

I don’t know if the others are not receiving my posts or if they are just being ignored.

The current exchange is quite disheartening however.

To postulate that an observer creates the universe he experiences is absurd in so many ways, and counter to the evidence in so many ways, that I cannot believe we have spent so much time in such a discussion.

All the evidence suggests the universe existed before observers, and continues to exist as each of us dies. The universe does what it does whether we observe it or not.  We can only make very slight, insignificant changes to the overall state of the universe. When we cause an interaction to occur by observation, it has an effect, but that does not mean that the universe is observer-centric. It just means that the universe does what it does.  When interactions occur a set of rules exist which govern those interactions.

In a universe which is in effect created in the mind of the observer, I am the only observer that I know to exist.  The rest of the mentally imagined observers I interact with are figments of my mind. So it does no good to communicate with those figments and try to convince those imagined others of anything.

Experience indicates that this is not the type of universe we live in.  Other sentient minds are present, all of us finding that Washington DC is located in the same spot and has the same buildings. We live in a single universe which has many sentient minds all seeing principally the same thing. We know this because we communicate with others, and compare notes.

Once we understand the physics well enough we can see that wave-function collapse is NOT required to explain an interaction. So the reason for some quantum physicists overreaching and concluding that the observer has a significant bearing on physics then is a mute argument.

We, as a species, seem to tend to look for the most “mentally stimulating” explanations, rather than sticking to the scientific approach, and looking for the most theoretically economical and practical answers.

The universe has many lessons for us embedded within.  One of the most striking lessons is the elegant simplicity of how everything works.  If we keep this elegant simplicity in mind as we look for the rest of the answers, we are far more likely to find the right answers.

Warmest Regards

Charles (Chip) Akins

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atviv at universephysics.com<mailto:viv at universephysics.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
--

Darren Eggenschwiler
Tech, Brand Calibre
07817 205 201

www.<http://www.brandcalibre.com/>brandcalibre<http://www.brandcalibre.com/>.<http://www.brandcalibre.com/>com<http://www.brandcalibre.com/>
0141 212 6356
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com<mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%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/20170824/2a4649d2/attachment.htm>