[General] STR

Sun May 28 14:17:14 PDT 2017

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