[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Jul 14 14:02:15 PDT 2017


Chip and Graham:

Chip: First I would like to agree with your agreement regarding Special 
relativity: "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." This was my original intent. First 1) 
to show that inconsistencies exist in SRT , second 2) to show that GRT 
was one avenue of development that utilizes gravity and acceleration to 
address the problems in SRT and to forward our understanding of gravity, 
and thirdly 3) to open the door for new directions. I did not anticipate 
getting blind sided by alternative interpretations that then did not 
further the discussion into step two and three. At least not in a step 
by step logical way.

Chip second: "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." It is ridiculous only within the context of 
an Aristotelian framework of reality in which one assumes there is a 
thing called "the same data". What if Plato, Kant and to some extent 
quantum theory is correct and the data no matter how or when it is 
viewed is and always has been in the eye of the beholder? Then the 
observer does influence the outcome of the experiment because for him 
the data he sees*is reality* and that reality will depend upon how he 
sees it.


The question I ask myself is can a useful and quantitative physics be 
built without  "the same data" assumption. In philosophy this is called 
the "naive reality" assumption and Aristotle's view that we are looking 
out through the windows of our senses at an objective real world has won 
the day for 500 years and it seem ridiculous to challenge all the greats 
who have come to this conclusion. But that is what I am doing.


Graham; First If you feel that your exchange with Albrecht was "as 
specifically limited to physical realities" and want to stay within the 
limits of your definition of physical realities and exclude how the 
nature of perception, and your(my) truism that perception is a tool of 
the conscious mind, effects and to a large extent determines our 
physical theories (which I believe is at the center of understanding 
both SRT and GRT and why they are incompatible with quantum theory)  
then I am sorry I interjected my comments into your discussion. Please 
keep taking and I'll just listen quietly.

However I find it very important to have a polite foil to discuss what I 
believe is the greatest of the grand challenges confronting science - 
i.e. the unification of subjective and subjective experience into a new 
integrated theory not of every thing, but of every action.

Graham2; Your second paragraph includes the typical words "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." 
The key here is "observer or measuring device moving with" I am only 
talking about an observer. A measuring device only relays information 
someone must be at the end of the chain to realize the information. The 
observer is *in*the measuring device, he cannot get out. He receives 
information and translates it into his mental display. Both the 
apparently stationary object "moving with the observer" and any 
apparently moving object in his display will be subject to the Lonrentz 
transformations BECAUSE these appearances are always created in the 
medium of that observers mind. I believe it is a grave error to treat 
the properties of the mind as an objective independent reality. But 
everyone does it until Now!


Graham3: I have no disagreement with your reciprocity argument. I only 
wanted to point out that in both the cases the human observer 
experiences his motion relative to the radiation source in his own 
display space.

Graham 4: "philosophers arguing about how many angels can dance on the 
point of a needle!" makes perfect sense to people who believe in god, 
heaven, and angels as the stake your life on it truth. Physicists 
arguing about what two measuring objects will conclude about each other 
also makes perfect sense to people who believe observers can ride along  
with them and see them as independent external objects without 
recognizing that they (the observers) are doing the seeing that creates 
these objects.

I'll try to get a copy of the relativity myth , sounds like a good 
starting point for my 3d) effort introduced in paragraph 1 above.

Best wishes

Wolf

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

On 7/12/2017 6:27 PM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> 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-mailwolf 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-mailwolf 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 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>
>
>             <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>
>
>
>
>
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
>             <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>             <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 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
>     <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>     <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 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170714/5b800ecc/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list