[General] STR
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sat Jun 3 07:22:54 PDT 2017
Hi Wolf, and also Al,
Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:41:24 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com>:
>
> 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
>
How can we explain the maximum of energy and the cut off at 6 GeV if
there is no entity to transport that energy? The piece of aluminum used
as a converter here has no influence to the energy at which the
conversion to a pair happens. How could it? And the pair production is a
single event presenting a well defined energy. On the other hand, this
experiment was repeated using different fixed electron energies in the
range of 4.5 to 7 GeV. And in each experiment the cut off energy for the
pairs was exactly the energy of the electrons in the original beam.
The only conclusion can be that there have been entities which have
transported exactly this energy (particularly those defining the cut off
region) to the point of conversion. And these entities are given the
name "photon" in standard physics. If someone has a better theory for
it, this one may propose another name for this entity. And the saying
that his is a "particle" is the normal motivation to call something a
particle.
Do you have an alternative idea?
>
> I do not quite understand the H small angle deflection, but why would
> light passing through material not be deflected?
>
There is always an interaction between a photon and a charge, so there
is a deflection. In this case there is a theory which makes a prediction
for the cross section of this reaction. An important value in this
theory is the differential cross section in the forward direction. - Now
it is by trivial considerations not possible to measure exactly in the
forward direction because there the measurement tools would be within
the primary beam. So one tries to get as close to the forward direction
as possible. In this experiment we were able to come closer to the
forward direction than it was possible in the past. - The result of this
measurement was in agreement with the theory ("Optical Theorem").
>
> 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?
>
You pick up an argument earlier in this discussion that the detector may
be in favour of a certain energy, so it might collect energy until this
value was reached. But this is not the case here as 1.) the aluminum
converter does not have a preference for specific energies; and 2.) this
experiment was repeated at some different energies, and in any case the
energy of the original electron was reproduced.
>
> 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,
>
The other detectors in this experiment were needed to monitor the
intensity and the spectrum of the beam. As we wanted to measure a cross
section we needed the original intensity.
>
> 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.
>
If any converter or detector here would sum up energies, why do we not
see energies above this value of 6 GeV? And further, if this summing up
should happen, the process has always statistical properties so that the
cut off edge would be washed out.
>
> 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
>
As I said, if the energy would be spread out then the edge at 6 GeV
would be washed out. But it was precise by less than 1% which conforms
to the accuracy of our energy measurement.
>
> 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.
>
As I wrote above, this measurement is very essentially different from
the photo electric effect. And the size of the particle is only
important only in so far that it should be able to pass through our
collimators. - If the photon has a size this will be most probably
related to the wavelength of that photon. And in so far it is compatible
with classical optics. Any S matrix is not needed in the scope of the
related theory.
>
> 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.
>
The probability of the pair production is well known in this case (here
3%) because pair production was known and used since many decades.
>
> 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.
>
The point 2.) I have discussed in detail above. The converter has in no
way properties of a resonance antenna, otherwise the probability of
detection would be sensitive to the incoming energy, which it is not.
And what are gravito-inertial fluctuations? As there is no connection
between gravity and inertia?
>
> 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.
>
The photon beam intensity of this experiment was not very high. So maybe
we could in a new evaluation show that only single photons have reached
the converter. We did not look at this point. However, it should be
generally possible to reduce the energy so far that we have single
photons coming in as isolated ones.
But to my knowledge there has been a lot of experiments done in
astronomy where definitely single photons have been measured. Their
measurements have been used to determine the spectra of faint stars. And
theses spectra where consistent to the spectra of bright stars, so the
energy was obviously correctly measured and not distorted by the
detectors in the case of single triggers.
And another case: Those famous experiments to check for the particle
wave question at a double slit have been performed also with laser light
of a very well defined wavelength and at very low intensities so that
clearly single photons were measured. Also here the result was that the
single photons carried the measured energy.
And there was another experiment done at Caltec in 1997. In that
experiment monochromatic radiation was emitted by a laser, then the
photons were reflected by high energy electrons so that the energy was
increased essentially to the value of the electrons. And these photons
were then converted into electron positron pairs. Also in this case the
energy of a pair was the energy of the earlier electron which
accelerated the photon.
>
> 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.
>
So your part: In which different way do you think that one can analyse
my experiment? With the assumption of waves which are quantized by the
measurement process it is clearly not possible.
>
> Sorry for that rant
>
I appreciate that you have tried to use arguments. But unfortunately
they do not apply.
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
Best,
Albrecht
>
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170603/1a7f9001/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list