[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Sat Jul 15 23:57:38 PDT 2017


viv;

If you can say that "The micro to femto etc realm, like the macro realm. 
does what it does, irrespective of an observer. The act of observation 
requires an interaction by objects in that realm. Those interactions can 
change the result, generating artifacts.'

Are those artifacts not exactly the data we use to construct our reality 
belief of the femto to macro realm and therefore our reality belief is 
observer dependent.

What am I missing?

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 6:46 PM, Viv Robinson wrote:
> Hi Chip,
>
> I agree with you. The micro to femto etc realm, like the macro realm. 
> does what it does, irrespective of an observer. The act of observation 
> requires an interaction by objects in that realm. Those interactions 
> can change the result, generating artifacts. Observer-centric was a 
> bit overboard on my part. It was used only in the context that the 
> observer can affect some results sometimes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Viv
>
>
> On 16 July 2017 at 8:26:20 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com 
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>) wrote:
>
>> 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-mailwolf 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170715/855ba04e/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list