[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