[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Jul 15 22:24:37 PDT 2017
I understand the challenge but and appreciate the warning,
I am very interested in the reference to the "Apply Newtonian mechanics
to properties of the photon as I outlined a while ago and you get
general relativity"
I found other discrepancies but if there is a redshift explanations for
the orbital p recession it would be very interesting
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 7/15/2017 12:49 AM, Viv Robinson wrote:
> 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-mailwolf 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
>>>> *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-mailwolf 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 atWolf 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 viv at universephysics.com
>> <a
>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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/20170715/061217ca/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list