[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Sun Jul 16 23:45:38 PDT 2017


Chip

Agree with everything until you get to " Interaction does what it does. 
The observer’s effect on the overall is miniscule."

No the interaction always requires a kind of cooperation between two 
parties and the observer effect is only miniscule when you look at the 
interaction from a third party point of view - if you are one of the 
interacting parties that you interpret the interaction in your own 
coordinate frame

If the partners are the I and the rest of the universe U then all I's 
interactions are explained by I in its model of U - that model may be 
quite accurate and may be used to predict the U's response and future 
interactions until it no longer works - what happens then is usually not 
part of physics - at this point creativity, growth, trial end error , 
evolutionary progress takes over - that is what i would like to 
integrate into physics

best wolf

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

On 7/16/2017 6:34 AM, Chip Akins wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf
>
> If we come to understand the nature of particles and interactions, 
> then we can predict which interactions will occur with a specific type 
> of measurement. When we really get to the cause and effect, and 
> discover more of the reality, we will know exactly what to expect when 
> we interact to measure.
>
> In this case, the observer comes to understand specifically why and 
> how they cause an interaction. And they come to understand the nature 
> of what they are studying.
>
> In this sense, the Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum did a 
> great disservice to science. By throwing in the towel, and saying that 
> we cannot know more in some sense, they distracted us from finding 
> ways to learn more.  But we have made some good progress since then, 
> and found that indeed we can know more.
>
> The exaggerate role of the observer was simply borne from these early 
> misconceptions.  We have the intelligence and means to keep pushing 
> the boundaries of our physical knowledge.
>
> Once we recognize that mutually exclusive simultaneous superposition 
> of states is physically impossible, and that there is cause and 
> effect, state followed by state, etc., we then lose the need for the 
> concept of such an important role of the observer.  We then see that 
> observation requires an interaction, and that is all. Countless 
> interactions occur absent observation, a few interactions occur due to 
> observation. Interaction does what it does. The observer’s effect on 
> the overall is miniscule.
>
> Is it not quite arrogant to think otherwise?
>
> But if you are right, please “observe” in a way so we all can have 
> peace, prosperity, happiness, and long life.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General 
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:58 AM
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox and other matters
>
> 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-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto: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>
>         <mailto: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 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/20170716/a49131f3/attachment.htm>


More information about the General mailing list