[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Tue Jul 11 06:35:57 PDT 2017

Comment for Wolf,
(also an observation on current discussion of 'greatness' of S Hawking as a scientist)

Wolf,

I don't recognise any correspondence whatsoever between your observation below and the substance of my exchange (agreement) with Albrecht.  That exchange was specifically limited to physical realities - including the physical reality of measurements that might be taken by an instrument in motion, acting as proxy for a human observer.  Hopefully that description distinguishes our conversation from the point that you are making relating to the nature of perception, and your truism that perception is a tool of the conscious mind.  I agree that we need to recognise that our conscious experience is an artefact of our own perceptual faculties as much as of our physical circumstances (I think we all agree on that), but that is a different conversation from the one between Albrecht and I - I understand from his response just received that this is how he sees it also.

You have interpreted my text as: "a consciousness inside a moving body would from his perceptive experience believe he is stationary in that body".  I wouldn't disagree with that, but your supporting text indicates to me that you've failed to grasp my main point.  That main point is: If a suitably-designed electronic logic circuit were equipped with instruments with which it could measure its own characteristics and also those of another object - then, whether it were static and the other object moving, or it were moving and the other object static, the measurements that it took would lead it to the (electronically!) logical conclusion that it was static and the other object was in motion in both of those cases.  This is wholly due to the fact that ANY physical object, animate or inanimate - even a single atom - will respond to a state of absolute rest OR of motion in such a way that an observer or measuring device moving with that object will draw conclusions (by human inference or solid-state logic) that the object is at rest (and therefore they are also) - wholly as a consequence of their/its own physical makeup being altered by that state of motion.  Likewise that moving observer/device will assess an objectively static object (such as an atom) as being in a state of motion, for exactly the same reason.

Let's take a simple example: a radioactive source (an ensemble of radioactive atoms) with a known rate of radioactive decay.  If that source is set in motion at a high speed, then a human observer or an instrument would correctly read the rate of decay (emission) of that source as being time-dilated by the appropriate factor for its speed of motion.  However, if instead the observer or instrument is in motion at that same speed, with the radioactive source being static, then physical conditions (the motion of the observer/instrument) would lead to that observer/instrument incorrectly assessing the rate of decay as being slowed by precisely the rate of time dilation that the observer/instrument are themselves subject to - and concluding from this that they are static and that the radioactive source is moving at the speed at which they themselves are in fact moving.  THIS is the reciprocity that we have been discussing, which demonstrates the all-pervasiveness of what I refer to in my book title as 'The Relativity Myth' - and THIS is why the mainstream scientific community is so dismissive of the idea that they may yet have something to learn about SR (and, presumably, why in this unique case they are happy to live with a physical phenomenon without questioning WHY it is so or making any effert to discover why it is so - in stark contrast to their response to EVERY other physical phenomenon).

On the 'greatness' of Stephen Hawking (and possibly other physicists)
===================================================

This reminds me far too much of the old adage about philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle!  I'm also - sadly - reminded of a reality tv-dating show episode I happened to see some time ago in which a male contestant was jeered at by the audience for saying yes, his allotted partner was gorgeous - but not 'drop-dead gorgeous'.  I feel this is about the level of the present interchange on this subject.

Surely greatness, like beauty, is (at least to some extent) in the eye of the beholder.  Personally I would attribute far more greatness to a scientist who significantly reduced incidence of a crippling disease than I would to one who discovered some new esoteric particle or obscure physical principle or devised a new theory of multiple universes.  Surely true greatness will only emerge with the test of time, when the true significance of a discovery is fully seen.  I'm sorry, but for me if the question of whether someone is 'great' or just 'very good' as a physicist turns on whether their thoughts on evaporation of black holes are credible or not so, then it's probably time for me to take up knitting - the outcome would certainly be more useful!

Best to all,
Grahame

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wolfgang Baer 
  To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox

  Graham;

  I think you are saying something that I have been trying to make clear to Albrecht which derives from my attempt to move physics away from the Aristotelian belief that we see reality through the windows of our senses and employ the Platonic belief that we see the 'shadows" - in modern therms-  we see our interpretation of the measurement reports from our sensors - in this case our body built in coordinate frame. I then translate your statements into more anthropomorphic observer inclusive language using larger font than your comments, 

  observer in a moving frame would be led to believe from observation that their frame is static

  a consciousness inside a moving body would  form his perceptive experience believe he is stationary in that body

  (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static frame
  those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static frame

  When a conscious observer "sees" another reference frame it is NOT an independent external reality but rather a mental image inside his own perceptive experience. Therefore the time dilation and length contraction is NOt an objective reality of the static frame

  they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their OWN motion).

  But rather an artifact of producing the perceptive image of the static frame in his own mind

  . 

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.comOn 7/9/2017 11:50 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

    Grahame,

    so as you have explained 'reciprocity' here, it is also my understanding. 

    Sorry, I missed your book. Can you please give me a reference (if it is in the internet) or the exact title and editor, if it is only available as a hard copy?

    One question in advance: Does the book also cover GRT? And if this is the case, is it also based on a fixed frame, so that it assumes something like an ether? 

    Best regards
    Albrecht

    Am 08.07.2017 um 14:01 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:

      Albrecht,

      I'd agree with all that you say here.  I'd add just one reminder, of what we've talked about before.

      For the 'unique absolute rest frame' to fully stand up to scrutiny in the light of experimental findings of SR, it's not only necessary to show that an observer in a moving frame would be led to believe from observation that their frame is static - it's also necessary to show that this moving observer would perceive the SAME degree of (a) time dilation and (b) length contraction in the absolutely static frame as would be seen from that static frame in the observer's frame (those two effects are of course NOT objective realities in the static frame, they are perceived by the moving observer as a consequence of their OWN motion).

      To show that the moving observer perceives themself as static is relatively (!!) easy; to show that they perceive an actually-static frame as subject to relativistic effects takes a little more thought - but it can be done, and shown to be so.  [This is what I have referred to previously as 'reciprocity'.]

      In addition, of course, it needs to be - and CAN be - shown how EVERY experimental finding that's considered to be evidence for frame symmetry can be fully explained without any need for, or reference to, frame symmetry.

      No paradoxes - just a little more thought than most physicists appear to have wished to put into explaining the 'how' of Relativity (which is what I always thought physics was actually about - explaining the 'how'?)

      All of this is shown in detail in my latest book, published last year.

      Best regards,
      Grahame
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Albrecht Giese 
        To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org 
        Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 9:06 PM
        Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox

        Chip,

        I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to understand relativity in general and dilation in particular, if one assumes that there is an absolute frame of rest, and that the motion with respect to this frame causes (among other phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific property of relativity that every observer in any inertial frame can assume that his frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the physical world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the absolute frame at rest.

        This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a proper use of the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why it is this way. It is a bit of work to make these calculations, but it is possible and one may say that this work is a necessity to understand special relativity.

        Albrecht

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

         Virenfrei. www.avast.com  

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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 grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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/20170711/52f3758e/attachment.htm>