[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Fri Jul 14 14:54:48 PDT 2017

Hi Wolf

I am not interested in such an observer-centric theory.  

I find it illogical, given all the different ways we can test such a theory,
and the fact that almost all of the results of such tests tell us that this
just is not the way the universe is made.

Frankly I do not want to waste any more of my time on it. I think you are
grasping at straws with this one. I think it is only fair that I be honest
with you about this.

This sort of "way out there" approach has a certain popularity and appeal
with some personality types, and regrettably many of those "types" wind up
in "science" looking for the bizarre, instead of looking for the sound,
solid, logical, simple, and explainable.

Virtual particles, simultaneous superposition of states, wavefuction
collapse, and this belief that the observer plays such an important role,
are in my opinion, fantasies, which will be laughable, and subjects of
derision, once we come to better understand our universe.

Other than this subject, I have enjoyed our discussions, and find your
contributions valuable and often insightful. 

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 4:02 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox

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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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>

_______________________________________________
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/20170714/87c2d9b3/attachment.htm>