[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters

Sat Jul 15 15:25:16 PDT 2017

Hi Viv

We are on a similar track regarding much of the explainable aspects of physics.

One thing that seems to have been taken out of context, I feel, is the “observers” role in the study of subatomic particles.

Interactions cause changes, obviously.  The only tools we have to study subatomic particles are interactions. Therefore, when we measure something, we change its state, simply because we must interact with it to measure it.  Whether the measurement is taken as a visual impulse in the observer’s eye, or by some other instrumentation, it causes an interaction, and changes the thing measured.

Interactions occur continuously in nature, in the absence of an observer as well.  Therefore, while it is true that making an observation requires interaction, which changes the state of the particle we are measuring, that does not mean that the subatomic universe is observer-centric.  The universe continues to do what it does whether we observe it or not. When we observe, or do anything else, we cause disturbances at the subatomic level, but that does not mean the universe is created by our minds or actions. It does mean that we can have at least a small effect on portions of the universe.

So my feeling is that the universe would continue to exist if all physical observers were removed, and that the interactions we cause by observation are just and only that.

Warmest Regards

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Viv Robinson
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:49 AM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox and other matters

Wolf,

Thank you for your response. In my presentation you will see that I have acknowledged that events in the micro world are observer centric. If you believe it can be proven in the macro world as well you should do as I have suggested. State the science behind it. Then use mathematics to show that the effect of the science matches observation. Without that everything is mere conjecture, discussion about which can, and do, go on endlessly. 

Reality is a universe in which there are three space dimensions and time. It is populated by empty space with electric permittivity and magnetic permeability, photons and particles. Experimental science has observed all those things. Physics is about exploring how they interact to produce what is observed. 

I do not find any physical or conjectural difficulties in using those properties to explain what is observed. I further suggest that classical physics, i.e. Newton's mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism, form the basis of the physical world. Apply Newtonian mechanics to properties of the photon as I outlined a while ago and you get general relativity. Most people can’t calculate the precession of Mercury’s orbit around the sun. However you will find it is directly related to the redshift z of photons emitted by sun and traveling between Mercury and Earth orbits. General relativity has a sound physical basis.

SRT and quantum effects are due to the toroidal or rotating photon model of matter. Those calculations are complex. But they have a sound physical basis, namely classical physics and the photon, and they do match observation. The first example was Planck’s derivation of the emission spectra of black body radiation. Classical electromagnetism led to a runaway cascade at high temperature. Applying the quantum of energy, the photon, to Maxwell’s work correctly predicted the observed radiation spectra. IMHO the same applies for other aspects of physics that many people find difficult to comprehend.

If you wish to convince people that the macro world is observer dependent, please state the physics behind the interaction between the observer and the effect it causes. Then use mathematics to show that the magnitude of the effect matches observation. Without those you will find it difficult to convince others, myself included, that there is validity to your assumption. Remember that the observers in special and general relativity situations will get different answers from observing the same phenomena from different perspectives. That does not men those observers affected the outcome.

Having said the above, you are entitled to continue your study. Until such time as you can clearly and distinctly state the physical principle involved and use mathematics to show that the effect matches observation, do not be offended or surprised if you continue to receive negative comments about your work. Remember Einstein is still being criticized for his theories over a century after he first published, even though his calculations match observation. That criticism is due to people not understanding the physics involved. Those like myself who do understand the physics have no problem with his relativity theories.

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 15 July 2017 at 4:26:10 PM, Wolfgang Baer (wolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com> ) wrote:

Viv:

I agree with everything you say and believe a rigorous scientific mathematical theory can be built on principles that includes the observer. It s a project I'm working on.

However if you insist that "What happens on a macro scale, happens whether anyone is looking or not." Then you've made the "naive reality" assumption which is the basis of classic physics and has been dis-proven on a microscopic scale by quantum theory and quite easy to disprove  in principle on a macroscopic scale if you ever attempt to account for the your own 1st person experience.

I refer to the writings of Henry Stapp and Hugh Everett 

Everett is known for his many-worlds theory but that was not his original thesis and that idea was actually popularized by Dewitt who thought the many-worlds idea  would sell more books. Everett originally based his theory on the assumption that all systems are observers 

This is not outrageous but simply means that there is something that its like to be piece of material. That assumption and pan-psychism is the only logical resolution to Chalmers "Hard problem of Consciousness' and the Explanatory Gap in science. So if you want to logically include your own experience in a scientific theory then you will eventually come to the conclusion that all systems are observers. If you do continue to define physics as a discipline based on the "naive reality' assumption then you are welcome to do so, but then you've made a semantic declaration and physicists can no longer claim to be exploring the nature of reality, but rather a very limited subset of phenomena that happens to conform to a certain set of assumptions. i.e. physics becomes a religion and everyone is entitled to their own.

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 7/14/2017 7:04 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:

Dear All,

Regarding the various comments that go back and forth over this group. There seems to be a huge reluctance on the part of anyone to take a couple of simple steps needed for a good theory. When they are undertaken, it is much easier to get an accurate viewpoint across. 

The first is to state the science involved. The second is to use mathematics to determine the magnitude of that science. If the science and mathematics combine to match observation, there is a reasonable chance the observed effect is explicable by the science forwarded. Those simple steps can place any discussion on a firm footing. Further proof comes from predicting an unobserved effect and having a match. Without them the discussions go back and forth based upon opinion that is not confirmed by observation, science and/or mathematics. 

Regarding any observer-centric theory. What happens on a macro scale, happens whether anyone is looking or not. The only exception is when a life form, eg humans, interferes with it and changes that happening. What is happening in Jupiter’s red spot happens whether or not we exist. Whether or not the radiations from it is detected by humans makes, no difference to what happens. It has left and won’t return. The only difference humans may make is if they crash a robotic probe into it. It may alter it a little bit.

It was observer-centric ideas that gave rise to such things as the flat Earth, where people could fall of the edge of it if they travelled too far. Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan disproved those about five hundred years ago. It also established the Earth-centric model of the universe, which was disproved some three hundred years ago. 

Anyone wishing to forward a macro observer-centric theory should forward the science behind the effect they wish to display. Then carry out the mathematics to demonstrate the magnitude of the effect and show how it matches observation. Otherwise it invites others to think the idea falls into the failed categories of Flat Earth, Earth centric  and similar failed theories.

The situation changes on the micro to femto etc scales. We cannot keep probing down with a smaller and smaller point. Ultimately we get down to the size of an atom, electron, proton/neutron and electromagnetic radiation. How these are used does determine the outcome of the results. The results obtained using electron microscopes can depend upon how the operator uses them, including specimen preparation, accelerating voltage, beam current/density, detectors used and so forth. 

The smallest mechanical probes used are the single atom at the tip of tungsten, platinum iridium or similar probe with a single crystal orientation. Different information is obtained whether the operator is using a tunneling or atomic force probe. 

Those observations can also change the nature of the observed object. Electron beams can ionize or otherwise contaminate the object. Scanning probes can move the positions of objects. Photons, eg, X-rays, can likewise damage and ionize specimens. 

That is where observations are observer-centric. Workers in those fields are making advances to reduce the observer effect. More than one microscopist has been embarrassed to have it pointed out to them that an observed effect was an artifact of their preparation or use of the instrument.

Ultimately that becomes the science behind Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Some things simply can’t be measured more accurately than is possible with the only tools we have available to us.

Regarding the discussions on Einstein’s relativity theories. Einstein did indeed develop those from purely mathematical considerations. This is different from what was proposed above. Without knowledge of the science involved, many people neither understand nor believe it. IMHO the toroidal or rotating photon model for the structure of matter provides the scientific basis for the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections. When that is applied, it covers all observations so far encountered. In other words it works.  

It does not need a universal rest point. Indeed the relativity aspect of the theory comes about because everything is viewed relative to the observer. Different observers don’t change what is happening. They see the same distant event differently. Although all observers measuring the same local event (eg, the speed of light), will get the same result in their local frame.

There is no twin paradox. If you consider just one part of the situation, comparing clocks at different velocity, you may run into problems if you don’t make the appropriate allowances for redshift (blue shift) as well as SRT corrections. Those calculations are not easy. To some it becomes easier to visualize the situation when allowance is made for a "fixed point" in space. As far as the “twins" are concerned, that "fixed point” can be set at the last time they were together and had their clock’s synchronized. Their independent motions will be governed by the SRT corrections. When they again meet up the differences between the two clocks will determine who has travelled fastest. 

Under any other situation you must take into account other factors. If at rest with each other some distance apart, there is the time delay between photon emission and detection that will give different times. If they are traveling at different speeds you need add the Doppler corrections to the distance corrections. They are not necessarily simple calculations. 

When all of those things are taken into consideration you will find the calculations show there is no “twin paradox”. Similarly there is no “twin paradox” when the two meet again at rest wrt each other, even if it is not at their starting point or velocity. The SRT corrections will determine which of them travelled the furtherest, i.e., went at the fastest speed. Any point in space and any velocity (wrt another observer) can be used as that reference point. There is no absolute reference point or velocity in free space and none is needed when you understand SRT.

There is no "twin paradox". There is no need to consider alternatives to Einstein’s SRT. It matches all observations to which it has been subjected. Those who wish to determine another explanation are quite welcome to try. IMHO they should consider that their inability to understand a topic does not make that topic wrong. The only thing that makes it wrong is the lack of agreement with experiment. The “twin paradox” is not one of those situations when all factors are considered. 

Cheers,

Vivian Robinson

On 15 July 2017 at 7:55:50 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com> ) wrote:

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 <mailto: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

_______________________________________________
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-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 viv at universephysics.com <mailto:viv at universephysics.com>  
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=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/20170715/c6132794/attachment.htm>