[General] STR
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Fri Jun 2 21:37:33 PDT 2017
AL;
Thanks for the endorsement and indeed we do not "see" waves any more
than we see light particles, it's all an interpretation derived from
what we do see which in popular lingo is "qualia" I use Heisenberg's
term "observables"
Which means our personal and social filter is always between "reality"
and the observables we can personally experience and that leaves a huge
amount two errors making a right, self deception, and just alternative
theories even after Occam's razor is applied. the point is not to get
too invested in any theoretical "truth" they all change.
There is one approach I believe that can transcend the filter problem.
We may have different explanations for our experiences but the framework
that can include all explanations is to concentrate on the observable to
explanatory process. this seems to be more fundamental than any theory
in the process. Thus self explanatory measurement cycles treated as
fundamental events could be the building blocks that replace elemetary
particles as the fundamental organizational tool of our experiences.
best
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/1/2017 3:13 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> For what it's worth, my endorsement of Wolf's point of view: As
> observers, we (lab creatures) never see an E&M wave, it is always just
> infered from the behavior of charged particles in the detector. In
> the end, that is the interaction of chrges in the source with those in
> the detector. This interaction is described by Gauss's Law, which is
> analitic everywhere but as the point locations of the charges; so, the
> interaction can be resolved with Fourier-analysis, in terms of the
> soultions of a Strum-Liouville p.d.q. (the simplest of which is the
> wave eq., but any complete orthonormal set---Hilbert space---could be
> used) givng the impression from the largest terms that there are waves
> involved. Pox on both houses: no waves and no particles! Long live Gauss!
> ---Al
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 01. Juni 2017 um 22:41 Uhr
> *Von:* "Wolfgang Baer" <wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] STR
>
> Albrecht: Your experiment
>
> I agree there is no need to talk of waves in the analysis of your
> experiment.
>
> However there is, in my opinion also no statement needing particles,
> in the description. Brensestrallung produces EM wave at multiple
> frequencies with a 6GEV cut off
>
> Then the photons are collimated , ok the light beam is focused
>
> I do not quite understand the H small angle deflection, but why would
> light passing through material not be deflected?
>
> Now comes the photon to electron positron converter , Is not the
> conversion dependent on the intensity of the field? Here we have the
> exact same situation as any photon detection in a photo plate
> question. Why is a single occurrence happen at a single spot?
>
> First it is not clear if your Schwarm detectors are coincidence
> counters that distinguish individual interactions or just beam
> detectors . But let's assume they do. In matter there are fluctuations
> , which means the conditions change and are different at different
> places. A region is illuminated with a spectrum of light energy which
> interact with the material region,
>
> at some random point the light energy and the pair production
> proclivity at that point match up and energy from zero to 6GEV is
> absorbed and a pair is produced, you assume all the energy comes from
> the EM field.
>
> Now you assume just like in the photo electric effect that because a
> single event takes place at a small region that therefore the light
> energy can not be spread out and must be a point like particle
>
> This of course is the same logical projection made by the photo
> elecric effect people. However it leads to all the difficulties of
> needing a pilot wave to guide the particles, making assumptions about
> the size of such a particle, which is assumed to be a point. and
> performing a simple before and after S matrix collision calculation
> that conserves energy and momentum. Basta.
>
> Eliminating the possibility, which I believe is the path to future
> progress, that some understandable ( not QM probability) happenings in
> the material produces the random - but not fundamentally or causally
> random, but exlainably random - opportunities for pair production
> interactions to occur.
>
> Such possibilities are 1) thermal excitation as per the nuclear
> reactions induced by sound presented at the Vigier 10 conference you
> attended, 2) that the material (here aluminum) acts like a resonance
> antenna and actually pulls energy from a larger EM area than would be
> calculated by e+ e- recoil directions , 3) that there may be
> gravito-inertial fluctuations that close the stalagmite stalagtite gap
> between EM field and pair production proclivity in any one small region.
>
> In order for your experiment to make any statement on the
> wave/particle question you would have to focus a stream of single
> photon ( your language) to a small enough spot size and make
> /consistent and repeatable/ measurements on the angle and energy of a
> coincident pair of e+ e- so that the single photon ( your language)
> alone determines the interaction that produces the pair. Only such an
> experiment would allow one to conclude that bullet like particle hit a
> stationary field of pair production possibilities (bullets) in the
> material and Knocks one of them apart to produce the pair.
>
> So I conclude that there is nothing wrong with you analyzing your
> experiment as flying balls of energy and momentum but that does not
> mean light is made of such balls. What it does mean is that some
> experiments are easier to analyze by assuming such balls, and others
> are easier to analyze by assuming waves - the choice is in lazy and
> egoistical Humans who want to project their own mental processes into
> Nature and claim to have made fundamental and mysterious discoveries
> about Nature that result in Nobel prizes, rather than take on the hard
> and humble job of finding out what reality is really like.
>
> Sorry for that rant
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Wolf,
>
> before we enter discussions about details I send you a drawing of
> my experiment with some explanations. I think that it is simple
> enough so that we do not need too much philosophy about
> epistemology to understand it.
>
> My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of the
> synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the target T
> (at 0 m) where they are converted into photons. The photons fly
> until the target H_2 where they are deflected by a small angle
> (about one degree) (at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the
> converter (KONV at 35 m) where a portion of the photons is
> converted into an electron- position pair. The pair is detected
> and analysed in the configuration of the magnet 2 MC 30 and
> telescopes of spark chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The
> rest of detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic photon
> beam.
>
> In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles
> (electron and positron) are measured and the momentum and the
> energy of both particles is determined.
>
> Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles, there
> is no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we should need
> here any QM.
>
> The rest of the mail will be commented later.
>
> Albrecht
>
> Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Andrew , Albrecht:
>
> "physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not
> required for the universe to go on doing what it does. " Disagree
>
> This is the old classic the world is the way we see it concept
> promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and dominated
> thinking for 1000years
>
> until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in principle
> un-observable interior of matter was always a mental
> projection requiring an observer.
>
> " governed and filtered by the laws which create the things"
> Baer's first law of physics is that the physicist created the
> law.
>
> "space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not an
> empty medium, but a tensor description is a linear approximation
>
> The medium can be completely torn
> apart only such processes involve life and death of self and
> are taboo in science. This is in fact the the path of
> development for quantum theory
>
> Albrecht;
>
> Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your
> descriptions are all on the theoretical "unknowable" side,
> which of course you believe describes physical reality, and
> no one would argue that our (your) theory is not self
> consistent, but to discuss the wave particle problem one needs
> to identify the vonNeuman cut between subjective personal
> observation and the un-observable domain described by the
> theory. Where are the detectors that tell you how the
> "unknowable" was stimulated and the detectors that tell you
> the "unknowable's" response and the detectors that tell you
> how some of the theoretical elements along the theoretical
> path inside the "unknowable" were controlled?
>
> Once we have such transition points between theory and
> observations identified I think I can show you that the QM
> probability wave picture is self consistent but also does
> science a great disservice by hiding and ridiculing
> speculation, research and experiment in deeper causes for the
> probabilistic phenomena
>
> A single atomic transition billions of light years away must
> be a particle to reach a similar atom and cause a transition
> in an atom in a detector on earth. And the fact that this
> particle transmission angle is random and exteeeeeeemly narrow
> (violating the uncertainty principle) and therefor just
> happens to hit our detector as purely random QM event leaving
> us with a Bohm guiding wave that controls the probabilities.
> It all makes sense only, *IF*you stop your analysis at the
> external objective aspect of reality and fail to realize that
> /beyond/ the emission at the distant galaxy and the absorption
> of the "photon" in your retina is the other half of the causal
> path which describes your subjective existence, *then* you
> will be blissfully happy with the self consistent QM explanation.
>
> So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that our
> quantum priests have built for us and just come up with more
> and more complex explanations within the BOX. Are we such cowards?
>
> Is that what you are proposing?
>
> Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we know
> to be true by direct experience into our theories. Then you
> will begin to see events not particles, cycles not points,
> actions not states, are the a better way to understand reality.
>
> best wishes
>
> wolf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> where do you miss reciprocity at STR?
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY:
>
> I have some problems with STR
>
> That physical laws should be the same for all
> observers is OK.
>
> But that implies reciprocity which is not OK.
>
>
> Peoples' thoughts?
>
>
> ========================================
> Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM
> From: "Chip Akins"
> To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>
> Hi Wolf
>
>
>
> I would like to add a comment to this discussion.
>
>
>
> It is my opinion that physics happens by itself,
> whether we think about it or not. And that an observer
> is not required for the universe to go on doing what
> it does.
>
>
>
> I also feel that our perception of what is going on is
> governed and filtered by the laws which create the
> things we call fields, particles, forces, and all the
> other,
> relatively abstract things we have named in our
> studies of nature.
>
>
>
> I also think there is a version of what we call
> relativity which is without paradox, but that
> relativity is not SR or GR, but rather a relativity
> which is based on matter
> being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed
> frame of space, with space as a tensor medium and not
> empty.
>
>
>
> The above comment is just my view or course, but I
> think it makes sense.
>
>
>
> Chip Akins
>
>
>
>
>
> From: General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM
> To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> Subject: Re: [General] STR
>
>
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I'll send this to you and the nature of light
> separately. then please check if it gets to you on both
>
> 1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see
> exactly where the Von Neuman cut takes place to
> evaluate the experiment from my observer inclusive
> perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are
> simply consistent results inside quantum theory. There
> are always two operations separating reality from
> our observational experience and since science is
> operating under the assumption that quantum reality
> (i.e. anything that cannot be seen directly such as atomic
> structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very
> likely that the two operations are adjusted to to make
> the quantum reality assumptions self consistent.
>
> 2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in
> current theory because if force and charge are treated
> as separate degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled
> apart by external gravito-electric forces then in
> order to keep them at the same point the current
> theory would implicitly require an infinite force.
> relaxing this
> requirement then allows current theory to be an
> approximation to one that does not require such an
> infinite force. Much like classical physics is an
> approximation
> of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum theory
> is an approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when
> the force between mass and charge does NOT
> approach infinity.
>
> 3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the
> Twin Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text
> books. Here is wikipedia
>
> " Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have
> been various explanations of this paradox. These
> explanations
> "can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of
> different standards of simultaneity in different
> frames, and those that designate the acceleration
> [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main
> reason...".[5] Max von Laue
> argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be
> in two separate inertial frames
> , one on the way out and another on the way back, this
> frame switch is the reason for the aging difference,
> not the
> acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by
> Albert Einstein
> and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation
> to explain the aging as a direct effect of
> acceleration.[7]
> "
>
> i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly
> select an experiment setup that eliminates the clock
> slow down due to velocity with the clock speed up due to
> acceleration. The equivalence principle equates
> acceleration and gravity in Einsteins theory. My
> thought experiment simply has two twins in inter
> stellar space
> accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions
> coming back to rest at the meeting point at the
> origin. If everything is symmetric one explanation is that
> velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at
> all. But by allowing an arbitrarily long coast time
> the relative velocity low down will always dominate
> and the twin
> paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's
> clocks must slow down according to SRT and GRT, so
> when theories reach a logical inconsistency they must
> be improved.
>
> What I believe is happening is that the general
> relativity expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c
> - m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru =
> the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside
> the mass shell of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are
> living inside the a black hole of radius Ru according to
> the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the
> brackets becomes;
>
> m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) -
> 1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian - (T-V)
>
> In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory
> calculates half the change of energy transfer from
> electric to gravitational energy. But it observes the
> change in
> electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate.
> As I have often said on this issue the equations are
> correct it is the world view that is wrong. The error
> started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This
> confused a Theoretical force with an Observational
> experience. It happened because the observer was taken
> out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the
> world in front of your nose) were taken to be reality
> instead of the mental experiences they are. Quantum
> theory is the beginning of correcting this error but
> it will take a while to find the right interpretation.
> We must add the mind back into physics.
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Hi Wolf,
>
>
>
> Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized
> during interaction with matter and then we project the
> quantized material state changes back into the
> waves as a mathematical convenience
>
> We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have
> referred to my PhD experiment. In that experiment we
> have used electrons of a well defined energy to
> convert them into photons. The photons were after a
> flight of several meters in the air detected by pair
> building in a thin layer of copper. The energy of the pair
> was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of
> the original electron. So, how can we understand this
> result if it is not the photon which carries
> exactly this energy and which is quantized with this
> energy?
>
> to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17
> comment; I'm introducing some new ideas in order to
> include the mind in physical theory. Treated
> individually one can reject them because anything new
> can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct.
> So have patience.
>
> 1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes
> it means what it says. Mass and charge are assumed to
> be properties of particles. Particles have been
> assumed to be points and so mass and charge are
> located at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and
> charge should be given separate degrees of freedom and
> the force between them is not infinite.
>
> The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary,
> there cannot be a force at all. If we look at the
> forces of charges, it is obvious (in the mind of
> physicists) that a
> charge can only interact with a charge of the same
> type. So the electrical charge and the charge of the
> strong force will by common understanding not react in
> any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of
> a charge (which is, however, not the understanding of
> present physics) then there should not be any
> force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass.
>
> If we look deeper into what mass is by present
> understanding, then charges may influence the
> dynamical process which we call "inertia". But that is
> in that case a
> complicated logical connection.
>
> 2)"The question here is again: what is more
> fundamental, action or force?" The rest of your
> comments are simply addressing an incomplete
> presentation of my
> theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change
> to be fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action
> is the material of change. Form is the state in which it
> is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the
> rate of action happening, force is the experience of
> all finite particles in a non homogeneous action flow
> who all
> want to experience more action. I think it is best to
> defer this discussion to either metaphysics or when I
> have complete presentation ready.
>
> Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I
> still follow this argument that action is something
> which the human brain needs to structure the world so
> that it
> fits into our brains. Particles which react to each
> other do not have this need. They react to a force,
> and the force and also the reaction to it can be
> infinitesimal.
> An action is (by my understanding) something which
> happens or does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal
> single steps which each can be understood as an
> action. So, this is my argument that action is a
> typical case of "human understanding".
>
> SRT:
>
> "First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to
> do with gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?"
> Because I have seen the twin paradox explained by
> including gravity in text books. clocks slow down
> because of velocity but speed up because of
> acceleration the two cancel when two twins are
> accelerated with
> constant acceleration for the first quarter of the
> trip, the ship turned around decelerated for the
> second quarter and continued to be accelerated toward
> the start
> point, during the third quarter and then rocket
> reverses for the third quarter and come to rest rest
> at the origin where the second twin has been waiting
> at rest.
> Now both twins will agree on the amount of time
> passing. The paradox is said to be resolved because
> Einstein's Srt is expanded to GRT and gravity is
> introduced.
>
> Can you please give me a reference to a text book
> which connects the twin paradox to gravity? I never
> heard about such an idea; and the discussion about
> ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
> perform this twin paradox in an environment where no
> gravitational sources are around, and it would work as
> usually described.
>
> According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity.
> The degree of slow-down is related to the speed of the
> clocks and to nothing else. Acceleration or
> deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
> clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all
> textbooks.
>
> Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the
> third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin
> where the second twin has been waiting at rest." Now I am
> confused. I have understood that both twins move and
> change their motion at exactly the same times. How can
> it then happen that on twin is at rest and expects
> the other one?
>
>
>
> "And second: the whole process as you describe it is
> completely symmetrical. Both twins make the same
> experience with time and with there according ageing.
> Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is
> that both twins see the other moving at a constant
> velocity for an arbitrarily long period of time
>
> why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only
> for the time until the other twin changes his speed.
>
> and each one would according to SRT calculate the
> other twin has aged relative to himself. both cannot
> be right. by making the acceleration period small and
> symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the
> gravity explanation but retain an arbitrarily long
> constant velocity. SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE
> RESOLVED IN GRT.
>
> Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox.
> Assume the following case which is sometimes
> discussed. There are two observers, A and B, and both
> have clocks with them. We assume that both observers
> move with respect to each other. Then observer A will
> find that the clock of observer B runs more slowly.
> But as both observers are physically equivalent also
> observer B will find that the clock of observer A runs
> more slowly.
>
> This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical
> conflict. But it is not. To see why not we have to
> have a closer look on how clock speeds (or the time in
> different
> frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks
> like.
>
> If the observer A will compare his clock run with the
> one of observer B, he will e.g. place two of his
> clocks, which we will call clock 1 and clock 2 (and
> which he
> has of course synchronized) along the path of observer
> B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B with
> his clock 1 and then with clock 2 in the moment
> when the observer B passes these clocks. The result
> will be that the clock of observer B have run more slowly.
>
> But how now the other way around? The observer B can
> of course compare his clock with both clocks of
> observer A when he passes these clocks. But now a
> difference: Both clocks of observer A have been
> synchronized in the frame of A. But in the frame of B
> they will not be synchronized (a fundamental fact in SRT).
> From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A
> will be retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the
> observer B can reproduce the observation of observer
> A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B
> slowed down. But observer B will use a different
> method to determine the speed of the clocks of observer A.
> Observe B will also position two clocks along the path
> which observer A follows in frame B and he will
> synchronize these clocks in his frame B. And with his
> clocks
> he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared
> to his own ones.
>
> This different clock synchronization follows from the
> time-related part of the Lorentz transformation:
>
> t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)).
> Regarding the example above v is the speed between the
> frames of A and of B.
>
> Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto
> Novo when I talked about the problem of de Broglie
> with SRT.) If not clear, please ask further questions I
> and shall go into more details.
>
>
>
> do my Emails show up
>
> I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in
> general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>
> Let me know if you get them
>
> I have received your mail once. But last time also
> Chandra and Adrew have answered. So the general
> distribution seems to work
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew W.:
>
> Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a
> theory of physics. It is smart mathematics only.
>
> Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even
> though, quantization is postulated wrongly on EM
> waves, rather than on quantum mechanically bound
> electrons!
>
> Chandra.
>
> ==================================
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ;
> Wolfgang Baer
> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal -
> but then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's
> flawed actually
>
>
>
>
>
> ========================================
>
> Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM
>
> From: "Albrecht Giese"
>
>
>
> To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles -
> General Discussion"
>
> Cc:
>
> Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity
>
>
>
> Hi Wolf,
>
>
>
> again comments in the text.
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> No Kc is the spring constant of the force holding
> charge and mass
> together
>
> That means a force between charge and mass? To my
> understanding mass and charge are completely different
> categories as a wrote last time. Charge is a
> permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
> dynamical process which also changes when the object
> changes its motion state (which at the end is :
> relativity).
>
> In order to build a framework of a physical theory
> that properly
> includes the observer as a measurement model
> building and acting
> component I use a very simplified concept built on
> the classic
> metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time
> along with the forces
> between them are fundamental. Here are some of the
> differences between
> my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics
>
> Just a question at this point: to which set of
> "metaphysical ideas" do you refer? If we refer to main
> stream physics, at least mass is a different category.
> And also
> time and space are most probably different categories
> from the others, at least for some of the physical
> community.
>
> * Summary of Action Theory additions to Classic
> Physical Concepts*
> The examples provided in this section are intended
> to show how action
> theory is applied to well known and observable
> situations that can be
> compared with analysis using classical physics
> concepts. What CAT has
> added is summarized as follows:
> -Change involving transitions between states is
> where physics is
> happening.
> -Change, visualized as stable action patterns,
> propagates through
> material media.
> -The degrees of freedom of classical systems has
> been doubled by
> separating mass and charge.
> -Internal material forces between mass and charge
> are introduced as
> heuristic visualizations to augment understanding
> of the interior of
> matter which is conventionally the domain of
> quantum theory (see
> chapter 6)
> -Mach’s principle and the connection between the
> inertial field is
> introduced in place of the observational pseudo
> forces such as the
> centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s
> formulation. (See Appendix on
> Mach’s Principle)
> -Time is defined as the name of the state of the
> system adopted as a
> clock, and time intervals are measured as action
> required to change a
> state separated by a constant state distance.
> Action theory is being developed as the physical
> underpinnings of an
> event oriented world view and a description of
> reality which includes
> both the subjective and objective aspect of
> reality described by CAT.
>
> The question here is again: what is more fundamental,
> action or force?
>
> In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes
> are very simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is
> a tendency, or a good strategy of our brains to build
> categories. For instance, there are billions of trees
> on our earth. No brain of a human being is able to
> register and to remember all these trees. So, our
> brain build
> the category "tree".
>
> That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no
> logical connection to the category-building, they
> follow fundamental rules.
>
>
>
> In an analogue way, there is a force between charges
> (else not!). If objects move which have charges the
> forces will cause that the motion of the objects is
> influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is
> fundamental. A human brain can now build the category
> of an "action" to describe, or better: to categories this
> process. This brain-related process is in my view a
> less fundamental view to the world, even though a
> helpful one.
>
>
>
> But again: mass and charge are not the same category.
> It is true that there would be no inertia if there
> would not be charges in the world.
>
> But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of
> charges (and a dynamical consequence). So one could
> say: a consequence on a higher level.
>
>
>
> And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way
> of humans to categorize motion. "Space" may be a
> structural way to treat the effect of charges.
>
> *Twin Paradox:*
> You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the
> Lorenz
> transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which
> describes time dilation
> How do you avoid the paradox in the following
> experiment
> Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse
> in opposite directions.
> At some very long time they are both reversed with
> a double pulse
> when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse.
> The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins
> experience the same
> acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are
> equal and can be
> eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is
> the arbitrarily
> long period where they are traveling with a
> velocity relative to each
> other. Since the time dilation formula only contains
> velocity squared the direction of relative travel
> does not make a
> difference. If the theory is correct there is a
> paradox and gravity
> cannot explain it.
>
> First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do
> with gravity. Why
>
> do you connect it to gravity?
>
>
>
> And second: the whole process as you describe it is
> completely
>
> symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with
> time and with
>
> there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a
> paradox? I cannot
>
> see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it
> can be.
>
> *do my Emails show up in the general discussion I
> keep only getting
> replies from people who send them directly and my
> E-mails do not show
> up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?*
>
> To test it, you may sent this mail again without my
> address in the list;
>
> then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it.
>
> Best,
> wolf
>
> Best
>
> Albrecht
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from
> the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
> List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> ---
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
> geprüft.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virenfrei. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish
> to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles
> General Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170602/bd72f6c1/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list