[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Chip Akins chipakins at gmail.com
Wed Jul 12 18:27:48 PDT 2017


Hi Wolf

 

When a measurement is taken, of any subatomic process, an interaction is
required. Whether that interaction is caused by a sentient observer, or an
assembly of electronic instrumentation, the requirement for interaction is
the same.  This is an elementary issue, because if we are made of atoms and
molecules, which are made of particles, and we want to study particles, we
must somehow interact with that which we wish to study.  And interaction
will cause a change of state of the particle we study. We simply do not have
any tools to study particles without having a significant effect on the
particles we study.

 

To assume that interactions require observation in order to occur is
logically flawed. And to assume that the observer plays a larger role that
just that of interaction is also therefore locically flawed.

 

We can build instrumentation which automatically records events, and then,
weeks later, or longer, we can first review the data which was collected. We
can do this in a repeatable fashion, and expect the same or very similar
results.

When several "observers" read the data then collected and communicate about
that data, it is clear to us that we have all viewed the same data.  It is
therefore quite ridiculous to assume that we, the "observers", had a notable
effect on the outcome of the automated experiment weeks earlier. 

 

The assumption of uncertainty, and of multiple simultaneous superposition of
states, is simply due to our lack of full knowledge of the state of the
system studied.

 

The universe has taught us that there is a cause for each effect.  The
mistaken assumption that the observe plays a larger role than just causing
interactions upon observation, was fostered by other, previous, mistaken
assumptions.

 

One thing which seems to be a common goal of this group is to try to remove
the mistaken assumptions and see what that says, and where that leads.

 

I have read your comments and discussions regarding an observer centric
universe.

Sorry I cannot agree. Too many logical problems which that approach.

 

But I do agree that Special Relativity, as written and discussed by Einstein
himself, has a fundamental paradoxical logical inconsistency, which cannot
be explained away by layers of additional "interpretation" of his theory.

 

As Grahame, and many of us, have mentioned, there is a form of relativity
which is causal, and without paradox.

 

Chip

 

 

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:50 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox

 

Albrecht:

I hope to be able to show you that the quantitative result you are looking
for can also be achieved by realizing a completely different model of
ourselves , one in which we are a space of parallel activity cycles and
create within it's spatial cross section  the observations upon which
Maxwells equations and the Lorentz transformations are built. 

I was hoping that by showing you pictures of Einsteins body conceiving of
observers in his mind that it would be clear that classic electrodynamics
and Einsteins interpretation of it are always conceived in a background
space of the observers mind , and therefore we are discovering properties of
our own way of displaying things within a framework we cannot get out of. 

As mentioned I am working on a book for Routledge in which I hope to show
the connection not only to the quantitative results your desire, but to the
quantitative results that would be applicable to an expanded reality that
incorporates the consciousness and spirit of living beings and this
integration of mind and body will in my opinion open new vistas desperately
needed in our correctly materialistic constrained world.

So stay tuned

best wishes 

wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> 

On 7/11/2017 4:04 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Wolf,

I have never denied that there is a difference between our perception and a
(possible) reality. What I always have said is that this assumption does not
help us in our attempt to understand the world around us unless we
understand the difference between reality and our perception functionally,
or at least investigate our detectable errors in a quantitative way.

This last discussion about the important question in relativity, whether
there is a frame at absolute rest, can easily be treated if using the
Lorentz Transformation. This L.T. shows us quantitatively, in which way the
results of measurements are influenced by relativistic effects so that this
impression of a frame at rest is caused in any frame; and our perception
reacts similar to the measurement tools.

This was content of the discussion between Grahame and me.

And using your example of dilation: this dilation is a physical fact in the
frame at rest; but it is only perception in a frame not at rest by the
effect of relativistic synchronization, where the way of synchronization is
quantitatively given by the Lorentz Transformation. 

Albrecht

 

Am 11.07.2017 um 08:03 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:

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.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com> 

On 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 <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>  

To: general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
<mailto: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
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

 

 


 
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 

Virenfrei.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 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
<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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 phys at a-giese.de
<mailto:phys at a-giese.de> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?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 Wolf at nascentinc.com
<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170712/ff83b9cb/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list