[General] On particle radius

Tue Jan 10 14:00:03 PST 2017

Chip,

SPOT ON!

There can only be ONE root cause for the apparent frame invariance of light speed - and we now have a cogent logical causal explanation for that effect.  We not only have no NEED for an unexplained metaphysical phenomenon (objective frame invariance of light speed), we also have no PLACE for it - it actually cocks up the works (to use a colloquial term) of a perfectly well-explained set of phenomena.

[My recent 'thought experiment' post was of course intended to play devil's advocate: we take objective SR as gospel, along with variation in particle size with speed - and we end up with a contradiction.  A classic 'reductio ad absurdum' line of reasoning.]

Einstein considered SR to be confirmed by a number of observed phenomena (Fizeau's Experiment, M&M's Experiment, anomalous aberration of starlight, induction of a current in a loop of wire, apparent frame invariance of Maxwell's Equations); EVERY ONE of those phenomena which he saw and presented as evidence for objective frame symmetry is now explainable in terms of well-understood causal factors independent of Einsteinian SR (for which no causation has ever been advanced).  However, Einstein also made a number of inferences on the basis of that proposal, such as 'relativistic' time dilation, which have since been shown to hold true (but have also since been shown to be due to other causes).  On the basis of those verified inferences, and their knock-on implications for findings (e.g. in the LHC) that have also proved consistent (for now clearly-explainable reasons), science has been content to stick with what we might call 'Objective SR' even though simple causal explanations are now understood for Fizeau's and other experiments (a causal explanation for time dilation was included in a video that was awarded the Junior Breakthrough Challenge Prize last year by a distinguished panel of judges acting for a body that includes Prof Stephen Hawking as one of its key members - but this appears not to have shaken faith in SR one jot).

However this is at best post-hoc rationalisation: "We were told that A is so; if A is so, B will also be so; B is indeed so - so A must be correct".  Any student of logic can tell you that "If A then B" does NOT imply "If B then A".  The problem is that the whole edifice of science over the past century and more has been built on the premise that Objective SR is a fact.  Four or five generations of scientists (and latterly the general public) have been educated in this vein, and university professors have passed on this hallowed 'truth' to their students, down through the generations.  Libraries of books have been written on this premise.  Billions of dollars/pounds have been invested, not to mention thousands of careers and reputations, in the past century - that's a massive amount of inertia built up on the basis of a metaphysical belief.  That's also a VERY strong disincentive to anyone rocking the boat by suggesting that the SR Emperor's clothes are in fact illusory; nobody whose reputation or career - or massive financial investment - is based on belief in Objective SR wants to even consider the possibility (fact) that the results on which that belief is founded are perfectly well explained in terms of causal effects without resort to an unexplained metaphysical 'property of the universe'.  This is to my mind very little different from belief in an all-powerful being, of the sort that 'serious scientists' are very ready to scoff at - or even a belief in fairies or tree sprites.

That's not to say that results produced by SR are all wrong - far from it.  SR has produced pretty consistently correct results - if for the wrong reasons; those results have been of benefit in a wide variety of fields.  Regrettably, though, this has only served to solidify resistance to any alternative perspective and perpetuate the limitations that Objective SR imposes; for example, it's arguably the superfluous insistence on a frame-symmetric model that's making it so difficult to fully understand gravitation.

As long as we have a mainstream scientific community that's not prepared to review SR critically in light of more recent findings, and will defend SR with any argument that comes to hand (however tenuous) - and will even reject without serious consideration any research paper that offers a credible alternative interpretation of available evidence (since "there's no need for it") - then the chances for science to get out of this developmental cul-de-sac and move forward are seriously limited.  The implications for the future of our species shouldn't be underestimated, as the growth potential of humankind depends on a fuller understanding of the nature of time and space.

That's the reason for my persistence, as Richard puts it.  It matters.

Best regards,
Grahame

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chip Akins 
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] On particle radius

  Dr Graham Bell

  Pardon me for still being on the soapbox.

  I find myself asking why it is that scientists would favor a theory not based on demonstrable cause and effect.

  In this group we find ourselves discussing particles of matter and how they are constructed of energy which is confined and moving at the speed of light.

  If this is how particles are made then there is an inescapable, built in, requirement for a specific form of "relativity".  

  This form of relativity is not SR.  Both cannot be correct. If we had both this form of relativity and SR then we would have to apply Lorentz corrections twice to all motion (y^2). But experiment has shown that we can only apply these corrections once if we want to get the right answers. 

  So (if matter is made of confined light speed energy) we are left with only one choice for what form of relativity actually exists in our universe. 

  In this form of relativity, I think the speed of the slit will have no effect on whether the electron can pass, it is only the speed of the electron which would make a difference.

  I am now understanding more of why we have not been making more progress in our physical understanding.

  I guess it is hard for us to see when we chose to wear the hallowed goggles of ingrained mistakes.

  Chip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170110/acf25d66/attachment.htm>