[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Mon Jul 17 05:53:57 PDT 2017
Hi Wolf
I applaud your original thinking. But I am afraid you are just not correct
in your premise.
You may view the evidence in the way you have, but I fear it will only keep
leading us into a blind alley and diverting us from real discovery. That
has been the result which we have had to endure, and attempt to negotiate,
from similar approaches for more than a century.
In our arrogance, we have assumed that if we can come up with a radical new
way of thinking, rather than just do the work of searching all the clues, we
will find a shortcut to "enlightenment". But there are no shortcuts which
actually lead us to our goal. The perceived "shortcuts" are these blind
alleys. We simply have to do the work to achieve the goals.
In our arrogance, we have assumed that human observation is far more
important in the scheme of things than it really is.
And yes, I do believe that the universe consist of a realism far beyond, and
more than, our human existence, and that if all humans were not here, the
universe would continue. There is no evidence otherwise.
While many theories are intellectually stimulating, that does not make them
right. We are easily enamored by these intellectual "shiny objects", in the
form of "radical new ideas". That is one of our problems.
Your conjecture goes against everything I have studied and learned the hard
way.
Sorry, can't help, not interested.
It is, in my opinion, not science, and will not lead us to better
understanding.
Chip
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:46 AM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox and other matters
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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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-mail wolf 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
<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
<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
_______________________________________________
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-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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
<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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/20170717/8dd22180/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list