[General] STR twin Paradox and other matters
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jul 20 22:20:24 PDT 2017
Chip:
"We then see that observation requires an interaction, and that is all."
Yes so each of us in our caves build models of what was behind the
interaction, what change in what system caused the change in our system
that consummated the interaction. We can never do better that build
inferences and models and because the model can never be the whole it
will always be an approximation and will always fail eventually,
So the next step in our understanding will be to place our models in the
context of our thinking process
Alrecht want to build better models and find ourselves in them- I want
to build easier and simplified models but build the thought process in
which they operate and then improve them.
"But if you are right, please “observe” in a way so we all can have
peace, prosperity, happiness, and long life." I have no wish to hurt
anyone, but no obligation to save anyone either. If I'm right nirvana is
a state of absolute equilibrium that might be equated with peace,
prosperity, happiness, I'm pretty sure life is the transition between
two states of nirvana that involves an interaction. The size of the
interaction is measured by action A its rate is energy E its lifetime is
T so A=E*T . Are you sure you want a long life.
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.
>
no he builds a model, it works in some restricted controlled
environment, but Why and How?
>
> 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.
>
absolutely
>
> 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.
>
yes and finding a meaning of our symbols is a necessary process toward
greater knowledge - we cannot be stisfied with just turning the crank.
>
> 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/20170720/6a26acfa/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list