<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
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:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXGeneral-Italic;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:STIXVariants-Bold;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Cambria","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.mi
{mso-style-name:mi;}
span.mo
{mso-style-name:mo;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hello Colleagues: Inspired by Kracklauer’s comments, I am making some generic response about physics-thinking; which is a repetition of my old statements, deliberately
re-phrased to generate stronger reactions! <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">To indirectly access the ontological realities of nature; the purpose of physics is to visualize the invisible interaction processes that give rise to the measurable data;
which we use to construct hypotheses and then theories of physics. “Evidence based” science, as it is currently practiced, is Measurable Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E). This is the best approach; but we must learn to enhance it further with newer enquiring
modes. MDM-E approach is necessarily based upon incomplete (insufficient) information about the phenomena we study; because no set of experiments can give us COMPLETE information about any natural entities. We COOK-UP information (interpret data) generated
by a detector based upon its own unique response characteristics to the particular entity interacting with it; they vary from interacting entity to entity. This is why each single physical process is unique and must be visualized or mapped separately by our
imaginations – apply Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Creating a generalized theory based upon SIMILAR PHENOMENON is a non-trivial task. All organized bodies of knowledge, so far put together by humans (social sciences or
hard sciences), are necessarily incomplete as they have been constructed based upon insufficient knowledge of the universe. See Gödel’s “Incompleteness Theorem”, if you believe only in mathematical logics! Unfortunately, the cosmic logics (ontological realities)
are not directly accessible by mathematical logics alone; albeit being an essential tool for this purpose. Otherwise, physics would not have remained stagnant for almost a century. We cannot construct (discover) THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION OF THE EDIFICE OF PHYSICS
without repeated iterations of the “working theories” and, HENCE, the older epistemologies; because we do not yet know the complete structure of the COSMIC EDIFICE.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">CONSIDER SUPERPOSITION EFFECT (SE) and contrast it with the SUPERPIOSITION PRINCIPLE (SP)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">SP or the mathematical summation of multiple amplitudes propagating through the same space-volume during the same time interval, do not represent
a physically observable phenomenon in nature. <b><i>Complex amplitudes by themselves cannot re-organize their mutual energy distributions.
</i></b>But, both the Classical Physics and the Quantum Physics assumes SP as an observable phenomenon in nature; even though Glauber rightly says, “I see a photon only after I detect one”!<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This is a non-trivial grand conceptual mistake in physics. Nature is not going to change herself because homo sapiens have been believing in SP, by itself, as an observable
physical phenomenon for several centuries!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In contrast, SE, is a measurable and re-producible phenomenon, registered as some physical transformation experienced by a detector. Two simple examples: breaking of a
quantum mechanically bound Ag-Bromide molecule in a photographic plate, or release of a quantum mechanically bound electron in a solid state photo detector. The correct QM mathematical recipe that matches with the SE data is the ensemble average of the square
modulus of the sum of all the filed induced complex dipolar amplitudes of oscillation due to all the superposed waves; not A photon from only ONE of the waves! Photons do not interact (or interfere) with each other; neither do they feel entangled (no force
of interaction between themselves) in the linear domain. This is just one simple example of how we have been confusing ourselves for centuries by imposing non-detectable (un-observable) SP as nature’s operational principle while ignoring the correct recipe
for SE as the correct <b><i>operational principle</i></b> of nature. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Try to visualize the physical processes behind the data generation due to the superposition of two different-frequency radio waves detected by a resonant LCR circuit.
Then contrast the processes when you are using a photo electric detector excited by two different stabilized single mode lasers. The response processes of the detectors are profoundly different; the mathematics are different and the final data are different.
They should not be taught under the old umbrella of SP that does not produce validate-able data! [See “Causal Physics: …”, CRC, 2014, by me;
</span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445270893&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">http://www.amazon.com/Causal-Physics-Photons-Non-Interactions-Waves/dp/1466515317/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445270893&sr=1-1&keywords=causal+physics</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:#1F497D">
]</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">If we learn to appreciate this obvious OPERATIONAL difference between SP and SE, we would not continue to waste thousands of brilliant-mind-hours and hundreds of millions
of dollars world-wide to create quantum computers using <b><i>entangled single photon interference</i></b>.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is quite funny how many of us laugh satirically at the religiously blind people who do not believe in evolution, especially, in USA. Are we ourselves protecting our
minds from the burden of further enquiry and evolution?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>af.kracklauer@web.de<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 19, 2015 11:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion; Nick Bailey; Anthony Booth; quicycle@gmail.com; ARNOLD BENN<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Muon decay and energy in a bottle<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Hi John:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Seems most of the disagreement comes about from the difference between "see" and "be." I don't want to bother sorting it out; if it hasn't been an issue for you in your work,
maybe it can be ignored. My present understanding is that the "perspecrive" viewpoint never leads to contradiction, not even implicit lexocographically, while the "ontological" view point, i.e., one that leads to net differences over cicular routes, etc.
always does if persued at all. This understanding is long from being anything unique to me! Noticed first by Poincare (I think, but there were others writing on it then whose names are now seldom cited. I have seen such analysis but have long forgotten just
where.). It matters to me because it is an imperdiment to formulateion of a </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">selff-consistent, multibody, manifestly covariant formulation of mechanics. Nowadys still, with some very
restricted expcetions, all consitent, closed form analyitic mechancis pertains to a small satillite bathed in the fields of a large body (unaffected by the fields of the satillite). Everything else is, even in principle, approxiamtion---good enought for NASA,
etc. but fundamentally incomplete.</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">My problem is, I can't shoe-horn the muon experiemnts into the perspective interpretation. There is no communication between the muon and the experimenter or other entity
to suffer any sort of perspective modification---at least in the descriptions given in text books and review articles. I can imagine a few ways out of this dilema, and intend to attempt to develop one or more to point of making them convincing. (Of course,
life---and death---being what it is, I may never acheive this. Understood.) The possible ways I see at the moment include that the assumtions about the origin of the muons in the experiemnts are wrong, some are generated down stream from their presumed
source. Another, less likely maybe, is there there is some physical effect on muons stabelizing them when in the ato. or a storage beam, analogous to the nucleus stabilizing neutrons. Also, one always has to be alert for GIGO type effects, including some
sore ot claibaration done in the course of the experiment that, perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not, assures the kosher outcome! There may be more ideas out and about. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">If you already know how to interpret muon data to fit the "perspective" view point, please tell me. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">But,
please be specific about what is interacting with whom by means of light (E&M), when. </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Without this communication, I don't see where optical effects can be present. Yet. </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">I am ignorant about these "g-2" experiments; I have never studied or worked somewhere where the guys in the next room were involved.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Best regards, Al<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;word-wrap: break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space" name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Gesendet:</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""> Sonntag, 18. Oktober 2015 um 11:26 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "John Williamson" <<a href="mailto:John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk">John.Williamson@glasgow.ac.uk</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" <<a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> "Nick Bailey" <<a href="mailto:nick@bailey-family.org.uk">nick@bailey-family.org.uk</a>>, "Anthony Booth" <<a href="mailto:abooth@ieee.org">abooth@ieee.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:quicycle@gmail.com">quicycle@gmail.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:quicycle@gmail.com">quicycle@gmail.com</a>>,
"ARNOLD BENN" <<a href="mailto:arniebenn@mac.com">arniebenn@mac.com</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> [General] Muon decay and energy in a bottle<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">This is a reply to another thread - but have started a new one because its is also relevant to another. It is a reply
to Al - on relativity and particle decays.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">From John W: …
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Hi Al, I am quite sure we actually agree in almost every respect. It is only, really, the reality of relative time as measured in clock experiments and in particle
lifetimes – or am I wrong? I have put my contributions this time round in dark blue – my older comments in light blue. I am very interested on ideas of “absolute time” as well – do not get me wrong. I would also be very interested if any lifetime experiments
for certain particles varied by a factor of 2 (if anyone knows anything about these). Sorry the reply has taken a long time – am just ridiculously busy with the day job (which has turned into a bit of a night and weekend job too). The paper I’ve attached is
on perspective in relativity and also has a bit on Wolf’s light-in-the-bottle from the lit at the end. Enjoy.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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 >>></span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: Albrecht is at least ambigious if he doesn't make the distinction between appearances via projection and ontological
modifications via mysterious consequences for "molecular force" and the like. His e-mail, as are mine and everybody else often, was written on the fly. Incomplete. </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">True.</span><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">"Two entities cannot at once be both be dialted in the other's view and not their own."</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: Take note here that I said "be", not "appear." (Even Einstein always said "appear"!)</span><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: Evidently, we agree (to some extent). I hold the view (not mine by orignation) that the perspective view-point is
self consistent, but that the ontological-modification view-point leads to contradictions
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">(Agreed). </span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">An entity in its own frame cannot BE both
long and short. As I recall this is what the logicians call the "Principle of Excluded Middle."</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Of course not. Just who is saying it is?</span><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: No. they see each other's VIRTUAL image of the other's clock running slow. That makes sense.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Nope, to say this better imagine two blind observers: they observe (by listening to the robot voice readout from both
clocks) that the clock that has accelerated rapidly moved away for some time, then accelerated and come back, then accelerated to stop and rejoin the first clock has run slow in the meantime. This is just exactly where Dingle (and Selleri) did not get it.
Blinded by logic! Indeed.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: Your assertions, made, as you claim mine are, "ex cathdra," are in crass conflict with Terrell analysis of what a
relativistic traveler sees. His analysis is nowadays generally accepted by the so-called main-stream even. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Glad we are on the same page with Terrel.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Here is his abstract for "Invisibility of the Lorentz contraction" with red emphasis from me: ...</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black">It is shown that, if the apparent directions of objects are plotted as points on a sphere surrounding the observer, the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a conformal transformation
on the surface of this sphere. Thus, for sufficiently small subtended solid angle, an object will
</span><span style="color:red">appear—optically</span><span style="color:black">—the same shape to all observers. A sphere will photograph with precisely the same circular outline whether stationary or in motion with respect to the camera. An object of less
symmetry than a sphere, such as a meter stick, will </span><span style="color:red">appear</span><span style="color:black">, when in rapid motion with respect to an observer, to have
</span><span style="color:red">undergone rotation, not contraction</span><span style="color:black">. The extent of this rotation is given by the aberration angle (</span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"STIXGeneral-Italic","serif";color:black">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"STIXGeneral-Italic","serif";color:black">−</span></span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"STIXGeneral-Italic","serif";color:black">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"STIXVariants-Bold","serif";color:black">′</span></span><span style="color:black">),
in which </span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"STIXGeneral-Italic","serif";color:black">θ</span></i></span><span style="color:black"> is the angle at which the object is seen by the observer and
</span><span class="mi"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"STIXGeneral-Italic","serif";color:black">θ</span></i></span><span class="mo"><span style="font-size:7.5pt;font-family:"STIXVariants-Bold","serif";color:black">′</span></span><span style="color:black">
is the angle at which the object would be seen by another observer at the same point stationary with respect to the object. Observers photographing the meter stick simultaneously from the same position will obtain precisely the same picture,
</span><span style="color:red">except for a change in scale given by the Doppler shift ratio</span><span style="color:black">, irrespective of their velocity relative to the meter stick. Even if methods of measuring distance, such as stereoscopic photography,
are used, the Lorentz contraction will not be visible, </span><span style="color:red">although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be presen</span><span style="color:blue">t</span><span style="color:black">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">I have attached the paper. Terrel is, indeed, talking about what one literally “sees”. As in with vision. Not about what
actually happens in the variation of time and space in SR. The last paragraph in the paper (attached) says this explicitly. What he says is that SIZES will not appear Lorentz contracted. They will (appear) (visually) contracted (or expanded) – but only by
a DOPPLER SHIFT. Exactly as I said in the previous emails and in the papers. Also this Doppler shift – as I explain in my papers – is at the root of the reason WHY muons live so long in storage rings. Because everything is made of light-like stuff it is all
different sizes in different frames (but always the same size in its own frame). This is NOT a contradiction – it is just the simple maths of the Doppler shift. Likewise clocks coming towards you will not appear to vibrate slow – but fast. Going away they
will look (visually) slow. I know there is a lot said online in Wikipedia and in textbooks that betrays a lack of understanding of the author as to what is going on. This is perfectly normal. No one understands everything! What is shocking is that it took
more than fifty years (and smart people like Terrel and Penrose) to get this stuff into print explicitly.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">The reason one “sees” – (by which I do not mean “look at” I mean measure or observe) time going slow IS perfectly well
understood in standard relativity. I still do not get why anyone has a problem with this (who understands relativity). It is BOTH simply understood in relativity AND is what you actually measure. The reason is that light in free space travels in straight lines
at lightspeed (neglecting gravity) in ALL possible frames. This means anything rod shaped in one frame appears (visually) rod shaped in every frame – by simple projection. All one sees with eye or photo is a ROTATION. Just as Terrel argues. Martin mentioned
this earlier in the “seeing the gunman round the corner” reference. Actually one sees nothing – because humans take a tenth of a second or so to process anything visual so all one actually “sees” is a rapidly expanding and receding rather small and insignificant
planet.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">So, I'd say it pays not to dictate what a muon sees. He doesn't see a damn thing (or least makes no use of it in the
analysis of the decay. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">True: poor muon is not one of the most gifted visual entities! This shows why and how we have been talking at cross-purposes.
To see or not to see, anyone? Anyway – everyone knows that muons are she’s –its gotta be anti-muons that are the boys.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> And, if he did "see" the Earth approaching, it would have to be (as we just agreed) a virtual image.)
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">No: this is merely vision, not the underlying reality.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> I argue that the analysis of the muon story is a "dog's breakfast" of both some valid and mostly rejected (as being
not from perspective-viewpoint) SR folklore notions. A direct out from this situation would be to show that the ensemble of muon generation events is actually distributed down stream from the presumed (never observed) source location.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">This out is (kind of) available for atmospheric muon experiments, but not for lab-created or other particles where both
creation and decay ARE observed. The simple fact is that the slightly straighter paths (fractionally closer to lightspeed) do go tens or hundred of times further. There is no out. However much you may want it. It is not a conspiracy of silence on these experiments.
I know. I have done them myself. Thousands and thousands of them. I analysed the biggest dataset in the world at the time on the worlds most powerful (then) computer. Short-lived hadronic particles do go for metres when they usually decay in nanoseconds. They
just do. Even light only goes a foot in a nanosecond – so how do they do that then? Relativity of time and space does explain this. If there is another theory which does I am happy to talk about it – but whatever it is it has to deal with what is observed
in experiment.</span><span style="color:black"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white">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!</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:#3366FF;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Sorry Al – I was not referring to you in those comments – but to others in the same thread who appeared to be wishing
SR away.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">AK: These comments show that you are not taking on board what I have actually said.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">This is certainly true – when you talked about things actually stretching and contracting I should have realised it was
joke.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> I have never rejected SR. That complex afflicts others, not me.
</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Good!</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> SR as 4-D space-time projection o 3/2 D is fine, as an agent of the modification of time (which I tend to see as absolute,
contrary to clocks) is wild sci-fi! </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">No. The slowing of clocks and the long life of short-lived particles is real. It is measured. If you want to say it is
sci-fi YOU, have to say why and explain the clock-slowing experiments in an equally convincing way. Sorry, this is the scientific method and it is brutal!</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> Symmetry is also to be called upon carefully. John Bell's string will not break becasue some cosmic ray passes the
rocket ship complex with v ~ c. Or, at least, the premise to his story would have to be rejected becasue the string could never be tied, given the profusion of cosmic rays, in the first place!</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">BTW, maths per se cannot confirm some assertion, just negate it. Can be that the maths coincide for wildly different
entities or processes. </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Could indeed be so (and probably is!).</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white">ciao, Al</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black;background:white"> </span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:blue;background:white">Cheers, John W.</span><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">_______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion
List at <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">
Click here to unsubscribe </a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>