<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>John D.:<br>
<br>
when we do physics we have the choice either to do algebra or to
accept the goal to understand physics. <br>
<br>
It was a new direction in the physics of the 20th century to
replace the work on physics by working on algebra. Albert Einstein
started this way to develop relativity as a mathematical construct
(whereas later he did not like this way any longer), Werner
Heisenberg followed this way very strictly (and got in this way
into conflict e.g. with Schrödinger, who still tried to work with
an understanding of physics itself). <br>
<br>
If we intend to work on relativity using physical understanding,
as Hendrik Lorentz did, we have to find a cause for relativistic
dilation; not only a mathematical solution for the constancy of c.
And the only cause of dilation which I know is the fact of a
permanent motion at c inside of elementary particles. Schrödinger
found this fact in the Dirac function (and it had to be found, as
the Dirac function describes the relativistic behaviour of
electrons) and gave it this funny name "Zitterbewegung" (because
he had bad feelings about it).<br>
<br>
Louis de Broglie always had the position to tread particle
behaviour as a </small><small>task about </small><small>physics,
not as a task of developing a working algebra. It is quite funny
that just his first great step was a piece of paper where he
developed a deduction of the (de Broglie) wavelength by doing
algebra. But it honours him - in my
view - that he criticized this way in the same paper as he stated
that the idea behind his result is not really physics. <br>
<br>
I am aware that "Zitterbewegung" is explained in a different (i.e.
less physical) way by quantum theorists. But it is my experience
that we can have great progress in understanding the nature of
matter by going back to understand physics rather than doing
algebra. Algebra can, of course, be of a great help to describe
physical processes which are already understood. But it is not a
proper replacement of understanding.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: A</small><small> Möbius strip is a funny and interesting
geometrical construct. But its existence is no explanation why
(i.e. by which force) something on this path is kept on this path.<br>
</small> <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 13.10.2015 um 00:06 schrieb John
Duffield:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:002f01d1053a$3e5142d0$baf3c870$@btconnect.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria",serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
em
{mso-style-priority:20;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:normal;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault
{mso-style-name:msochpdefault;
mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;
mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN;}
span.htmlpreformattedchar0
{mso-style-name:htmlpreformattedchar;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.emailstyle18
{mso-style-name:emailstyle18;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.emailstyle21
{mso-style-name:emailstyle21;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Albrecht:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">It’s
easier to dwell on the bones of contention rather than share
the wide acres of common ground. See the Wikipedia <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zitterbewegung">Zitterbewegung</a>
article:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN">The resulting expression consists of an
initial position, a motion proportional to time, and an
unexpected oscillation term with an amplitude equal to the
Compton wavelength. That oscillation term is the so-called
"Zitterbewegung". Interestingly, the "Zitterbewegung" term
vanishes on taking expectation values for wave-packets that
are made up entirely of positive- (or entirely of negative-)
energy waves. This can be achieved by taking a <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foldy-Wouthuysen_transformation"
title="Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation">Foldy Wouthuysen
transformation</a>. Thus, we arrive at the interpretation
of the "Zitterbewegung" as being caused by interference
between positive- and negative-energy wave components.</span><span
style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"
lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">I don’t like the idea of
negative-energy waves myself. But I do like the way the
Dirac equations is a wave equation. And I like that the
Compton wavelength. And the wave packets. And how we make
electrons and positrons out of light waves in pair
production, then diffract them, then annihilate them to
get our light waves back. And how in the </span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"
lang="EN"><span style="color:windowtext">Foldy–Wouthuysen
transformation article you can read this: <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"
lang="EN"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN">In optics, it has enabled to see the deeper
connections in the wavelength-dependent regime between light
optics and charged-particle optics (see <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_optics"
title="Electron optics">Electron optics</a>).</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">There’s something going round and
round in there. And it </span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#001966;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#001966;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.google.co.uk/#q=zitterbewegung+rotation"><span
style="color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><span
style="color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">sure
as hell ain<span
style="color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">’<span
style="color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:black;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">t
cheese</span></span></span></span></a></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">. Draw a sinusoidal waveform on
a strip of paper, then cut it out so you’ve got a piece of
paper like this:</span></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#5B9BD5;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><img
id="_x0000_i1031"
src="cid:part5.08000608.05070001@a-giese.de" height="82"
width="487" border="0"></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">You’ve got a positive curvature
followed by a negative curvature. Now make a M</span></span><em><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;font-weight:normal"><span
style="color:windowtext">ö</span></span></em><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">bius strip. It ought to be a
double loop, like a line drawn around a M</span></span><em><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;font-weight:normal"><span
style="color:windowtext">ö</span></span></em><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><span
style="color:windowtext">bius strip, then you’ve got two
things orbiting each other. Then everybody’s happy. But
that’s one for another day. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">John
D<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Dr. Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 October 2015 22:02<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light particles
& theories<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dear John,<br>
<br>
great, I almost agree. But replace "light going around" by
"zitterbewegung". Because zitterbewegung is the cause of
special relativity, it acts like the parallel-mirror light
clock.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
PS: Will come back to your previous mail soon.<br>
<br>
<br>
<span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Am
12.10.2015 um 22:28 schrieb John Duffield:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">When
it comes to the muon, I think it’s simplest to think of it
as <i>light going round and round and round</i>. And then
to say it does so for circa one zillion revolutions before
the muon decays. Only if it’s moving fast it isn’t going
round and round and round in a circle, it’s helical
instead. Hence the one zillion revolutions take longer. So
the muon lifetime is extended.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><img
id="Picture_x0020_2"
src="cid:part8.04020608.02020104@a-giese.de"
height="153" width="211" border="0"></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Then
once the muon has decayed and a more-or-less massless
chargeless neutrino has departed at the speed of light,
all you’re left with is light going round and round. We
then call it an electron. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">As
regards symmetrical time dilation, I agree it’s akin to
perspective. When we are separated by distance, I say you
look smaller than me, and you say I look smaller than you.
But we don’t then say <i>whoa paradox!</i> Nor should we
say that when we are separated by relative motion. Our
time is just the number of reflections on our <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity">parallel-mirror
light clock</a>. And the light in that clock either
looks like this | or it looks like this /\/\/\/\/\. It’s
like the circle and the helix viewed from the side.
Special relativity works because of the wave nature of
matter, as per the attached <i>The Other Meaning of
Special Relativity</i> by Robert Close. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Regards</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">John
D</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>John Williamson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 October 2015 19:11<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nick Bailey <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk"><nick@bailey-family.org.uk></a>;
Ariane Mandray <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr"><ariane.mandray@wanadoo.fr></a>;
Anthony Booth <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org"><abooth@ieee.org></a>;
ARNOLD BENN <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:arniebenn@mac.com"><arniebenn@mac.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gentlemen,<br>
<br>
I detect a tendency to act as though physics is a kind
of chocolate box from which one can discard the flavours
one does not like. Not so. It all has to fit together
and all has to agree with experiment.<br>
<br>
Everything - however you mess up your view of it - has
to stay consistent with experiment. A safe way of doing
this is keeping with some fundamental principles, never
known to violated, such as the absolute conservation of
energy.<br>
<br>
Sorry Chandra, you just cannot "discard Special
Relativity" and keep GR, since SR is in GR as an element
of it (in the diagonal of the metric tensor). Agree with
the standing on shoulders of giants bit though (and with
most of the rest of what you say).<br>
<br>
Al, Albrecht is right. There is no contradiction - just
something you need to understand about the symmetry. You
seem to see a contradiction where there is none present.
You make some statements as though they are fact which
are not fact. <br>
For example you say >>><br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">"Two entities cannot at once be both be
dialted in the other's view and not their own." <br>
<br>
<br>
Yes they can. Yes they must, it has to be symmetric!
Saying something does not make it true, however sensible
it may seem to the sayer. There is no actual dilation.
The existence of another entity somewhere has no bearing
on the local properties elsewhere. All is as viewed, all
is perspective (good word). If this is what you are on
about then we agree.<br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">It seems to me though that is not all those
textbook writers that are missing something but you.
Both observers DO see each other clocks running slow.
The Muon in the muon decay sees the earth as approaching
it at near lightspeed -in its primary stillness and
pure stationary state. The Earth it observes is still
round - but as round as a pancake. The muon decays in
2.2 microseconds, in its frame, as usual. This layers
multiple kilometres into the earth in the earth frame
though. This is because the muon thinks the earth is as
flat as a pancake. No contradiction - no problem. If it
were two earths colliding, with muons in them, each muon
in each earth would see the other earth as flat.
Perfectly symmetrically. Both sets of observers (as
their last act in this case) would observe muons to live
longer when moving fast in their frame.<br>
<br>
This is all symmetric. The base reason (for space and
time contraction) is explained in the first of my two
papers to SPIE (where gamma is derived from photon
energy transformations E=H nu) , and arises, simply,
from the linearity and conservation of energy. It is
just derivative of the Doppler shift of photons. Dead
simple. Do the maths! You can discard SR if you like,
but you must also lose energy conservation and the
relation E=h nu if you do. SR is that relation which
maintains energy linearity and conservation of energy
for light. Chandra is right: there are some things that
are simply more fundamental than other things. Energy
(and hence frequency) is, apparently, more fundamental
than space and time scales. You need to get this! Read
my paper!<br>
<br>
Regards, John (W).</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center"
align="center"><span lang="EN-US">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"></span></div>
<div id="divRpF575473">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
on behalf of Roychoudhuri, Chandra [<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu">chandra.roychoudhuri@uconn.edu</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 12, 2015 5:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Hello Everybody: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Not being a theoretician, I stay away
from theoretical arguments. But, my outright
opinion is that we should discard Special
Relativity; in contrast to ride on the shoulders
of GR and QM to develop much better theories for
future; which again should be discarded and
advanced by the next generations; and so on. GR
and QM have captured some kernels of ontological
reality. But, they should be advanced to deeper
levels of ontological realities by constructing
newer theories by re-building the very
foundational postulates behind the current
theories. It must be continued for a long time to
come. It is about time to openly learn to get rid
of our mental Messiah Complex and move forward to
keep on evolving as thinking species.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US">In many of
my papers [</span><span lang="EN-US">Down load
paper: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/"
target="_blank"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#0070C0">http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/</span></a>;
summarized in the book, “Causal Physics”, CRC,
2014], I have repeatedly underscored that we must
be alert about the parameters we use while
building an equation regarding their existence as
a physical variable involved in the phenomenon we
are modeling. The parameters can be primary (leads
the interaction process and measurable); it can be
secondary (measurable, but exists only in
association with the primary parameter); it can be
indistinguishable whether it is primary or
secondary because of our limited understanding; it
can be a tertiary parameter (human logics needs it
as a variable based on the current limited
knowledge, etc.), etc. A simple example is ν = c/λ
and the associated velocity relation c=√(1/εμ).
Here I claim that, from the standpoint of
functional “INTERACTION PROCESS”, “ν” is the
primary parameter (intrinsic oscillation of the
source dictates the frequency). But “c” is also a
primary parameter given by intrinsic set of
properties of nature; we cannot do anything more
than complain about that! Whereas, “λ” is a
secondary parameter defined by the first two
parameter already mentioned.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"
lang="EN-US"> However, to measure </span><span
lang="EN-US">“c”, we need to introduce another
highly functional and CONCEPTUAL parameter, the
“time interval”, δt from our daily experience of
v= δx/ δt. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> Let us
not forget that we can never directly measure the
time interval δt, or its CONCEPTUAL big brother,
THE “RUNNING TIME”, “t”. Smart humans figured out
how to measure both “δt” and “t” using the real
physical parameter, “f”, the frequency of diverse
kinds of natural oscillators, be it a pendulum or
an atomic clock. We smartly set “δt” =(1/f); “f”
being a real physical parameter; we are still
“grounded” to gather “evidence based” results!! We
measure “f”, invert it to get a time interval “δt”
and a longer time interval “Δt”~N.“δt”, where N is
big number representing so many complete
oscillations of the “Pendulum” we use.
Operationally speaking, “Δt” is the closet we can
get to the concept of “running time”.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> The
running time “t’, not being a real physical
parameter of any physical object within our
control; we must not dictate nature as to how she
ought behave based upon human invented “running
time”. The “running time” cannot be “dilated” or
“contracted”. However, the physical frequency of
any and all “pendulums” can be “dilated” or
“contracted” with appropriate changes in the
environment of the “pendulum”. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> There is
SPACE, defined as “ether”, by most of the
physicists who constructed the foundation of
classical physics over centuries. Based upon,
modern understanding, I have improved upon the
“ether” concept to CTF (Complex Tension Field)
that accommodates Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW)
all across the cosmic space. The NIW removes
wave-particle duality and most of the non-causal
postulates thrown into QM to make it “nobody
understand…”. QM is understandable and it has many
realities built into it and hence it can now lead
to scientific platform to re-build QM as a higher
level theory. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> The
definition <b><i>mass</i></b> “m” is another
parameter that must be eliminated from physics,
not because it is unreal like the running time,
but because we have known for quite some time that
“m” (=E/c<sup>2</sup>) represent energy, not some
“substance”. We measure its value out of its <b><i>inertial
behavior</i></b> when it is forced to move in
the presence of some potential gradients. We do
not measure the content of the “substance” it
holds; rather the <b><i>kinetic behavior</i></b>
of the enfolded energy as resonant oscillations of
the CTF. Kinetic motion (associated with another
harmonic oscillation; a de Broglie oscillation
rather than de Broglie “Pilot Wave”) adds further
additional energy on to its structural
(oscillating) energy. I would not call it
“Relativistic Energy” as this energy increase
happens for all velocities.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> In my
personal view point, it is time for us to leave
behind the romanticism of hanging on to the
successes of the twentieth physics, (albeit being
absolutely correct); but, a la Newton, let us
boldly ride on the shoulders of the formulators of
these theories to move on and allow our
knowledge-horizon to expand and allow
evolution-given perpetual enquiring minds to keep
on evolving. Our job is to build that cultural
platform for our next generations to come, instead
of focusing on the transient Nobel Prizes; which
did not even exist before 1900. But science was
steadily maturing staying focused on understanding
the interaction processes that give rise to the
measurable data for “evidence based science”!
Unfortunately, we now know that “evidences”
always bring limited information; they do not
provide complete information about anything in
nature. Thus, all theories must be iterated on and
on! </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt" lang="EN-US">Sincerely,</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"
lang="EN-US">Chandra</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> General [<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 12, 2015 10:44 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] nature of light
particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap:break-word"
name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Montag, 12. Oktober 2015
um 15:13 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht Giese" <<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de">genmail@a-giese.de</a></a>><br>
<b>An:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"
target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>,
"phys >> Dr. Albrecht Giese" <<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a></a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
target="_blank">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] nature of
light particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Al,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Albrecht: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: From your comments
I can't be sure if we disagree (as
it seems your are saying) or not.
Some responses below may get this
issue.<br>
<br>
I do not see any conflict if the
situation with synchronized clocks
is obeyed as I explained it in my
last mail (see below). Those clock
assemblies show dilation, but do not
present any logical conflict.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: An interval for one
party cannot BE (appearances are a
different matter!) origianl length
(per his clock) and forshortened
(per partner's clock) at the same
location and termination with one
end at the same instant. Obvious!
Even text books point out that the
interval is the same in both frames
(per +/- Relativity Principle) and
show a hyperbolic isocline
intersecting the travelr's world
line. Thus, each for himself agrees
on the length, and each for the
other agrees on a dilated interval.
Where else does this sort of thing
happen? PERSPECTIVE. </span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Your argument makes
sense only if it is taken that the
virtual image (or its equivalent in
space-time; where it can't be static
as in Classical Optics) is
dilated/contracted. If that's what
you mean, we agree. Otherwise, what
the texts say is pure contradiction
or science fiction mystery.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
When looking at a real situation one
has to identify the observed object
on the one hand with a clock in the
example, and on the other hand the
observer with another clock or a
sequence of other clocks. If we
observe a moving particle (like a
muon) in a laboratory, than the muon
is represented by one clock in the
moving system. In this case the
observer is represented by a line of
clocks positioned along the path of
the muon. Because, if we think in an
idealized way, we have first to note
the time when the muon starts by
looking at the clock which is close
to the muon at start time. When the
muon decays we have for the decay
time to look to the clock which is
close to the muon at that moment.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: In experiments, NO
lifetime measurement is made at all!
The data consists entirely of
counting the quanttity of muons at a
given location. Neither experiment
provides any empirical information
whatsoever about the muon generation
instant or location---in any frame.
These latter features are surmized
or calculated given assumed theory.
Thus, an alternate explanation must
only account for the presense of a
muon quantity at the measureing
location compatible with those
ESTIMATED using SR or whatever. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
This may look ridiculous as for the
observer in the lab all clocks have
the same indication. But from the
"view" of the muon the clock at rest
at the start looks advanced and the
clock at the end looks retarded. So
the muon has the impression that the
time in the lab was slowed down.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: If things only
"look" to be dilated/contracted,
then you are talking about the
virtual image; in which case we have
agreed from the start. BUT, with
this explantion the muon data cannot
be explained. To begin, the muons
don't look or interact with any
exterior observers. Even the
exterior observers look only at the
number of muons in a location where
they do not expect many. This muon
story does not involve two parties
for whcih the appearance can be
accounted for in terms of projective
geometry in either 3-space
(classical optics) or 4-space-time
(SR hyperoptics, if you will).<br>
<br>
As a reminder: The equation for time
transformation is: t' = gamma* (t -
vx / c<sup>2</sup>) (i.e. the
Lorentz transformation). Here is x
the position of that clock which is
close to the moving object at the
time of observation. And that
position is x = v*t if the observer
it at rest. So, for this observer
there is t' = t/gamma. For a
co-moving observer there is v = 0,
so the result is t' = t*gamma. Both
results are covered by this
equation, and there is no logical
conflict.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: Here again you may
be confusing/mixing ontology with
perception. Typically clock
readings are at different locations,
so they have to be broadcast along
light cones to the other
party---this usually takes TIME!
(This fact alsos leads to
confusion, as there are two times
involved, that of the event at the
event and that of the news arival
not at the event.) But a muon does
not wait for a signal from anybody,
it uses its clock, basta. It's
interval is dilated only as seen
from the (passive) observer's frame;
about which the muon knows (i.e.
waits for light rays from or sends
to) nothing nor needs anything.
Likewise, the observer on Earth
doesn't know (measure) where or when
the muon originated. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: Anyway, we know
cosmic rays reach the surface of the
Earth. So how many muons have those
that almost get that far generated?
SR texts don't address this. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: We haven't even got
to Eherenfest yet!!!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">AK: ciao, Al<br>
<br>
Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Albrecht &
Curious:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Overlooked in my
previous responce:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">If, as is done in
virtually all text books on SR
(I just checked Rindler, for
example) time dilation is
discussed in terms of the
dialtion happening to a
concrete objects (as it must
if the Muon story is to make
sense) then there is an
obvious inconsitency and sever
conflict with the relativity
principle. Two entities
cannot at once be both be
dialted in the other's view
and not their own. The real
trick here is explaing how
this is not obvious to authors
of text books! Maybe, to
paraphrase Weinburg: That
stupid people say dumb things
is natural, to get smart
people to say dumb things, it
takes physics!</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Your explantion
(or my prefered version:
perspctive) renders the
objection both mute and
sterile wrt muons, however. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm
0cm
8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"> Sonntag, 11.
Oktober 2015 um 22:55 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Dr. Albrecht
Giese" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:genmail@a-giese.de"><genmail@a-giese.de></a></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a></a>,
"A. F. Kracklauer" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de"><af.kracklauer@web.de></a></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re:
[General] nature of light
particles & theories</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hi Al,<br>
<br>
about time dilation.<br>
<br>
The problem is that time
dilation looks
inconsistent at the
first glance. But it is
not. I shall try to
explain. It has to do
with clock
synchronization. (I try
to do it without
graphics, which would be
easier, but a problem in
an email.)<br>
<br>
Assume that there are
two inertial systems, I
call them A and B. Both
move in relation to each
other at some speed v.
Now assume that there
are clocks distributed
equally over both
systems. And of course
in both systems the
clocks are synchronized.
Now there comes a
relativistic effect. If
the observer in A looks
to the clocks in B, he
finds them
desynchronized. The
clocks which are in
front with respect to
the direction of motion
are retarded, the ones
in the rear advanced.
Similar in the other
system. If an observer
in B looks to the clocks
in A, he finds them also
desynchronized in the
way that the clocks in
the front are retarded
and the clocks in the
rear advanced. Shall I
explain why this
happens? If you want, I
can do it. But next time
to keep it short here.<br>
<br>
Now, what is dilation in
this case?<br>
<br>
If the observer in A
takes one of the clocks
in B and compares it to
those clocks in his own
system, which is just
opposite in sequence,
then the clock in B
looks slowed down. But
if he takes one clock in
his own system, A, and
compares it to the
clocks in B which are
opposite in sequence,
the clocks in B look
accelerated.<br>
<br>
Now it looks in a
similar way for the
observer in B. If the
observer in B does the
equivalent to the
observer in A just
described, he will make
just the same
experience. No
contradiction!<br>
<br>
In the case of the
muons: The muon which
will decay is in the
position of a clock in
the muon-system, and
this clock is slowed
down as seen from the
observer at rest as
described above, and
this is no violation of
symmetry between the
systems. If an observer,
who moves with the muon,
looks to the clocks of
the system at rest, he
will find those clocks
accelerated. No
contradiction. Correct?<br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre style="background:white"><span lang="EN-US"></a></span><o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;background:white"
align="center"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">
<hr style="color:#909090"
noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm
6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1028"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo"
border="0"></span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt
.75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast
Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center"
align="center"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">
<hr style="color:#909090" noshade="noshade" size="1"
width="99%" align="center"></span></div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:0cm 11.25pt 0cm 6.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" id="_x0000_i1030"
src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png"
alt="Avast logo" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#3D4D5A">Diese
E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><span
style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" alt="Avast logo" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
<br><a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>