<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Wolf, and also Al,<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:41:24 -0700 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com"><wolf@nascentinc.com></a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Albrecht: Your experiment</p>
<p>I agree there is no need to talk of waves in the analysis of
your experiment.</p>
<p>However there is, in my opinion also no statement needing
particles, in the description. Brensestrallung produces EM
wave at multiple frequencies with a 6GEV cut off <br>
</p>
<p>Then the photons are collimated , ok the light beam is
focused <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
How can we explain the maximum of energy and the cut off at 6 GeV if
there is no entity to transport that energy? The piece of aluminum
used as a converter here has no influence to the energy at which the
conversion to a pair happens. How could it? And the pair production
is a single event presenting a well defined energy. On the other
hand, this experiment was repeated using different fixed electron
energies in the range of 4.5 to 7 GeV. And in each experiment the
cut off energy for the pairs was exactly the energy of the electrons
in the original beam. <br>
<br>
The only conclusion can be that there have been entities which have
transported exactly this energy (particularly those defining the cut
off region) to the point of conversion. And these entities are given
the name "photon" in standard physics. If someone has a better
theory for it, this one may propose another name for this entity.
And the saying that his is a "particle" is the normal motivation to
call something a particle.<br>
<br>
Do you have an alternative idea?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p>I do not quite understand the H small angle deflection, but
why would light passing through material not be deflected?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
There is always an interaction between a photon and a charge, so
there is a deflection. In this case there is a theory which makes a
prediction for the cross section of this reaction. An important
value in this theory is the differential cross section in the
forward direction. - Now it is by trivial considerations not
possible to measure exactly in the forward direction because there
the measurement tools would be within the primary beam. So one tries
to get as close to the forward direction as possible. In this
experiment we were able to come closer to the forward direction than
it was possible in the past. - The result of this measurement was in
agreement with the theory ("Optical Theorem").<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Now comes the photon to electron positron converter , Is not
the conversion dependent on the intensity of the field? Here
we have the exact same situation as any photon detection in a
photo plate question. Why is a single occurrence happen at a
single spot?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
You pick up an argument earlier in this discussion that the detector
may be in favour of a certain energy, so it might collect energy
until this value was reached. But this is not the case here as 1.)
the aluminum converter does not have a preference for specific
energies; and 2.) this experiment was repeated at some different
energies, and in any case the energy of the original electron was
reproduced.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>First it is not clear if your Schwarm detectors are
coincidence counters that distinguish individual interactions
or just beam detectors . But let's assume they do. In matter
there are fluctuations , which means the conditions change and
are different at different places. A region is illuminated
with a spectrum of light energy which interact with the
material region, <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The other detectors in this experiment were needed to monitor the
intensity and the spectrum of the beam. As we wanted to measure a
cross section we needed the original intensity.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p>at some random point the light energy and the pair production
proclivity at that point match up and energy from zero to 6GEV
is absorbed and a pair is produced, you assume all the energy
comes from the EM field.<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
If any converter or detector here would sum up energies, why do we
not see energies above this value of 6 GeV? And further, if this
summing up should happen, the process has always statistical
properties so that the cut off edge would be washed out. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p>Now you assume just like in the photo electric effect that
because a single event takes place at a small region that
therefore the light energy can not be spread out and must be a
point like particle <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I said, if the energy would be spread out then the edge at 6 GeV
would be washed out. But it was precise by less than 1% which
conforms to the accuracy of our energy measurement.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p>This of course is the same logical projection made by the
photo elecric effect people. However it leads to all the
difficulties of needing a pilot wave to guide the particles,
making assumptions about the size of such a particle, which is
assumed to be a point. and performing a simple before and
after S matrix collision calculation that conserves energy and
momentum. Basta.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
As I wrote above, this measurement is very essentially different
from the photo electric effect. And the size of the particle is only
important only in so far that it should be able to pass through our
collimators. - If the photon has a size this will be most probably
related to the wavelength of that photon. And in so far it is
compatible with classical optics. Any S matrix is not needed in the
scope of the related theory.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Eliminating the possibility, which I believe is the path to
future progress, that some understandable ( not QM
probability) happenings in the material produces the random -
but not fundamentally or causally random, but exlainably
random - opportunities for pair production interactions to
occur.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The probability of the pair production is well known in this case
(here 3%) because pair production was known and used since many
decades. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>Such possibilities are 1) thermal excitation as per the
nuclear reactions induced by sound presented at the Vigier 10
conference you attended, 2) that the material (here aluminum)
acts like a resonance antenna and actually pulls energy from a
larger EM area than would be calculated by e+ e- recoil
directions , 3) that there may be gravito-inertial
fluctuations that close the stalagmite stalagtite gap between
EM field and pair production proclivity in any one small
region.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The point 2.) I have discussed in detail above. The converter has in
no way properties of a resonance antenna, otherwise the probability
of detection would be sensitive to the incoming energy, which it is
not.<br>
And what are gravito-inertial fluctuations? As there is no
connection between gravity and inertia?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>In order for your experiment to make any statement on the
wave/particle question you would have to focus a stream of
single photon ( your language) to a small enough spot size and
make <i>consistent and repeatable</i> measurements on the
angle and energy of a coincident pair of e+ e- so that the
single photon ( your language) alone determines the
interaction that produces the pair. Only such an experiment
would allow one to conclude that bullet like particle hit a
stationary field of pair production possibilities (bullets) in
the material and Knocks one of them apart to produce the pair.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
The photon beam intensity of this experiment was not very high. So
maybe we could in a new evaluation show that only single photons
have reached the converter. We did not look at this point. However,
it should be generally possible to reduce the energy so far that we
have single photons coming in as isolated ones. <br>
<br>
But to my knowledge there has been a lot of experiments done in
astronomy where definitely single photons have been measured. Their
measurements have been used to determine the spectra of faint stars.
And theses spectra where consistent to the spectra of bright stars,
so the energy was obviously correctly measured and not distorted by
the detectors in the case of single triggers. <br>
<br>
And another case: Those famous experiments to check for the particle
wave question at a double slit have been performed also with laser
light of a very well defined wavelength and at very low intensities
so that clearly single photons were measured. Also here the result
was that the single photons carried the measured energy.<br>
<br>
And there was another experiment done at Caltec in 1997. In that
experiment monochromatic radiation was emitted by a laser, then the
photons were reflected by high energy electrons so that the energy
was increased essentially to the value of the electrons. And these
photons were then converted into electron positron pairs. Also in
this case the energy of a pair was the energy of the earlier
electron which accelerated the photon.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<p>So I conclude that there is nothing wrong with you analyzing
your experiment as flying balls of energy and momentum but
that does not mean light is made of such balls. What it does
mean is that some experiments are easier to analyze by
assuming such balls, and others are easier to analyze by
assuming waves - the choice is in lazy and egoistical Humans
who want to project their own mental processes into Nature
and claim to have made fundamental and mysterious discoveries
about Nature that result in Nobel prizes, rather than take on
the hard and humble job of finding out what reality is really
like. <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
So your part: In which different way do you think that one can
analyse my experiment? With the assumption of waves which are
quantized by the measurement process it is clearly not possible. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p>Sorry for that rant</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I appreciate that you have tried to use arguments. But unfortunately
they do not apply.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>best wishes <br>
</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Best,<br>
Albrecht<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1915c49f-9842-5c38-e17d-52ee176e0939@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<p>Wolf,</p>
<p>before we enter discussions about details I send you a
drawing of my experiment with some explanations. I think
that it is simple enough so that we do not need too much
philosophy about epistemology to understand it.</p>
<p>My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of
the synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the
target T (at 0 m) where they are converted into photons. The
photons fly until the target H<sub>2</sub> where they are
deflected by a small angle (about one degree) (at 30.5 m).
The deflected photons meet the converter (KONV at 35 m)
where a portion of the photons is converted into an
electron- position pair. The pair is detected and analysed
in the configuration of the magnet 2 MC 30 and telescopes of
spark chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The rest of
detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic photon
beam.</p>
<p>In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both
particles (electron and positron) are measured and the
momentum and the energy of both particles is determined.</p>
<p>Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles,
there is no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we
should need here any QM. <br>
</p>
<p>The rest of the mail will be commented later.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.05.2017 um 20:19 schrieb
Wolfgang Baer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e3bc1c99-7194-ae49-d8d0-231776cc9d1a@nascentinc.com">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<p>Andrew , Albrecht:</p>
<p>"physics happens by itself" Disagree "an observer is not
required for the universe to go on doing what it does. "
Disagree</p>
<p>This is the old classic the world is the way we see it
concept promoted by Aristotle, Aquinas, Newton, etc. and
dominated thinking for 1000years</p>
<p>until quantum Mechanics began to realize that the in
principle un-observable interior of matter was always a
mental projection requiring an observer. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>" governed and filtered by the laws which create the
things" Baer's first law of physics is that the physicist
created the law. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>"space as a tensor medium and not empty" Agree it is not
an empty medium, but a tensor description is a linear
approximation <br>
</p>
<p> The medium can be completely torn
apart only such processes involve life and death of self
and are taboo in science. This is in fact the the path of
development for quantum theory<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht;</p>
<p>Do you have a diagram of your thesis experiment. Your
descriptions are all on the theoretical "unknowable" side,
which of course you believe describes physical reality,
and no one would argue that our (your) theory is not
self consistent, but to discuss the wave particle problem
one needs to identify the vonNeuman cut between subjective
personal observation and the un-observable domain
described by the theory. Where are the detectors that tell
you how the "unknowable" was stimulated and the detectors
that tell you the "unknowable's" response and the
detectors that tell you how some of the theoretical
elements along the theoretical path inside the
"unknowable" were controlled?</p>
<p>Once we have such transition points between theory and
observations identified I think I can show you that the
QM probability wave picture is self consistent but also
does science a great disservice by hiding and ridiculing
speculation, research and experiment in deeper causes for
the probabilistic phenomena <br>
</p>
<p>A single atomic transition billions of light years away
must be a particle to reach a similar atom and cause a
transition in an atom in a detector on earth. And the fact
that this particle transmission angle is random and
exteeeeeeemly narrow (violating the uncertainty principle)
and therefor just happens to hit our detector as purely
random QM event leaving us with a Bohm guiding wave that
controls the probabilities. It all makes sense only, <b><font
size="+2">IF</font></b><font size="+2"><font size="-2">
</font></font>you stop your analysis at the external
objective aspect of reality and fail to realize that <i>beyond</i>
the emission at the distant galaxy and the absorption of
the "photon" in your retina is the other half of the
causal path which describes your subjective existence, <b><font
size="+2">then</font></b> you will be blissfully happy
with the self consistent QM explanation.</p>
<p>So lets all stop trying to think outside the BOX that
our quantum priests have built for us and just come up
with more and more complex explanations within the BOX.
Are we such cowards?<br>
</p>
<p>Is that what you are proposing?</p>
<p>Why not try to complete the picture and integrate what we
know to be true by direct experience into our theories.
Then you will begin to see events not particles, cycles
not points, actions not states, are the a better way to
understand reality.<br>
</p>
<p>best wishes</p>
<p>wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432t
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/28/2017 2:17 PM, Albrecht
Giese wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:73a5853b-6bd9-4f87-8aec-32949fe851f5@a-giese.de"
type="cite">Hi Andrew, <br>
<br>
where do you miss reciprocity at STR? <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
Am 27.05.2017 um 09:07 schrieb ANDREW WORSLEY: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have some problems with STR <br>
<br>
That physical laws should be the same for all observers
is OK. <br>
<br>
But that implies reciprocity which is not OK. <br>
<br>
<br>
Peoples' thoughts? <br>
<br>
<br>
======================================== <br>
Message Received: May 25 2017, 06:42 PM <br>
From: "Chip Akins" <br>
To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion'" <br>
Cc: <br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR <br>
<br>
Hi Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I would like to add a comment to this discussion. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is my opinion that physics happens by itself, whether
we think about it or not. And that an observer is not
required for the universe to go on doing what it does. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also feel that our perception of what is going on is
governed and filtered by the laws which create the
things we call fields, particles, forces, and all the
other, <br>
relatively abstract things we have named in our studies
of nature. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I also think there is a version of what we call
relativity which is without paradox, but that relativity
is not SR or GR, but rather a relativity which is based
on matter <br>
being made of confined light speed energy in a fixed
frame of space, with space as a tensor medium and not
empty. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The above comment is just my view or course, but I think
it makes sense. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chip Akins <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer <br>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:13 PM <br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] STR <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Albrecht: <br>
<br>
I'll send this to you and the nature of light
separately. then please check if it gets to you on both
<br>
<br>
1) regarding your Thesis it wold be necessary to see
exactly where the Von Neuman cut takes place to evaluate
the experiment from my observer inclusive <br>
perspective. The problem is that so many "truths" are
simply consistent results inside quantum theory. There
are always two operations separating reality from <br>
our observational experience and since science is
operating under the assumption that quantum reality
(i.e. anything that cannot be seen directly such as
atomic <br>
structure, electorons etc.) is reality. It is very
likely that the two operations are adjusted to to make
the quantum reality assumptions self consistent. <br>
<br>
2) The force between charge and mass is infinite in
current theory because if force and charge are treated
as separate degrees of freedom and are in fact pulled <br>
apart by external gravito-electric forces then in order
to keep them at the same point the current theory would
implicitly require an infinite force. relaxing this <br>
requirement then allows current theory to be an
approximation to one that does not require such an
infinite force. Much like classical physics is an
approximation <br>
of quantum physics in the limit h->0. Quantum theory
is an approximation to my Cognitive Action Theory when
the force between mass and charge does NOT <br>
approach infinity. <br>
<br>
3) SRT I am completely puzzled by your statements the
Twin Paradox gravitational explanation is in many text
books. Here is wikipedia <br>
<br>
" Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been
various explanations of this paradox. These explanations
<br>
"can be grouped into those that focus on the effect of
different standards of simultaneity in different frames,
and those that designate the acceleration <br>
[experienced by the travelling twin] as the main
reason...".[5] Max von Laue <br>
argued in 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in
two separate inertial frames <br>
, one on the way out and another on the way back, this
frame switch is the reason for the aging difference, not
the <br>
acceleration per se.[6] Explanations put forth by
Albert Einstein <br>
and Max Born invoked gravitational time dilation <br>
to explain the aging as a direct effect of
acceleration.[7] <br>
" <br>
<br>
i'm simply saying the these explanations explicitly
select an experiment setup that eliminates the clock
slow down due to velocity with the clock speed up due to
<br>
acceleration. The equivalence principle equates
acceleration and gravity in Einsteins theory. My thought
experiment simply has two twins in inter stellar space <br>
accelerating and decelerating in opposite directions
coming back to rest at the meeting point at the origin.
If everything is symmetric one explanation is that <br>
velocity ang gravity cancel and no effect exists at all.
But by allowing an arbitrarily long coast time the
relative velocity low down will always dominate and the
twin <br>
paradox is present. Each twin calculates the other's
clocks must slow down according to SRT and GRT, so when
theories reach a logical inconsistency they must <br>
be improved. <br>
<br>
What I believe is happening is that the general
relativity expression for Gamma *SQRT(m) = SQRT(m*c*c -
m*v*v + m*2*Xg) Now since m*c*c = m*G*Mu/ Ru = <br>
the gravitational potential energy of a mass inside the
mass shell of the universe Mu of radius Ru. We are
living inside the a black hole of radius Ru according to
<br>
the Schwarzschield solution. Then the term in the
brackets becomes; <br>
<br>
m*c*c - m*v*v + m*2*X => .2 [ (1/2 *m*c*c + m*Xg) -
1/2*m*v*v ] => 2 * L ; where L is the Lagrangian -
(T-V) <br>
<br>
In other words the entire SRT and GRT theory calculates
half the change of energy transfer from electric to
gravitational energy. But it observes the change in <br>
electromagentic energy as a slow down in clock rate. As
I have often said on this issue the equations are
correct it is the world view that is wrong. The error <br>
started with Newton when he equated F=m*a. This confused
a Theoretical force with an Observational experience. It
happened because the observer was taken <br>
out of physics and Observational experiences (i.e. the
world in front of your nose) were taken to be reality
instead of the mental experiences they are. Quantum <br>
theory is the beginning of correcting this error but it
will take a while to find the right interpretation. We
must add the mind back into physics. <br>
<br>
best wishes <br>
<br>
Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer <br>
Research Director <br>
Nascent Systems Inc. <br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 <br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a> <br>
<br>
On 5/24/2017 12:01 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote: <br>
<br>
Hi Wolf, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 22.05.2017 um 06:11 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: <br>
<br>
I completely agree with Chandra EM waves are quantized
during interaction with matter and then we project the
quantized material state changes back into the <br>
waves as a mathematical convenience <br>
<br>
We have discussed this topic earlier here and I have
referred to my PhD experiment. In that experiment we
have used electrons of a well defined energy to <br>
convert them into photons. The photons were after a
flight of several meters in the air detected by pair
building in a thin layer of copper. The energy of the
pair <br>
was measured, and the measurement showed the energy of
the original electron. So, how can we understand this
result if it is not the photon which carries <br>
exactly this energy and which is quantized with this
energy? <br>
<br>
to answer some of Albrecht's comments on my 5,15,17
comment; I'm introducing some new ideas in order to
include the mind in physical theory. Treated <br>
individually one can reject them because anything new
can be rejected when one assumes the old is correct. So
have patience. <br>
<br>
1) "That means a force between charge and mass?" yes it
means what it says. Mass and charge are assumed to be
properties of particles. Particles have been <br>
assumed to be points and so mass and charge are located
at points. I believe this is wrong. Mass and charge
should be given separate degrees of freedom and <br>
the force between them is not infinite. <br>
<br>
The force is indeed not infinite, on the contrary, there
cannot be a force at all. If we look at the forces of
charges, it is obvious (in the mind of physicists) that
a <br>
charge can only interact with a charge of the same type.
So the electrical charge and the charge of the strong
force will by common understanding not react in <br>
any way. And if now mass is understood as some type of a
charge (which is, however, not the understanding of
present physics) then there should not be any <br>
force between e.g. an electric charge and a mass. <br>
<br>
If we look deeper into what mass is by present
understanding, then charges may influence the dynamical
process which we call "inertia". But that is in that
case a <br>
complicated logical connection. <br>
<br>
2)"The question here is again: what is more fundamental,
action or force?" The rest of your comments are simply
addressing an incomplete presentation of my <br>
theory. However I consider dynamics or simply change to
be fundamental. Reality is action in a form. Action is
the material of change. Form is the state in which it <br>
is manifest. Action is fundamental , Energy is the rate
of action happening, force is the experience of all
finite particles in a non homogeneous action flow who
all <br>
want to experience more action. I think it is best to
defer this discussion to either metaphysics or when I
have complete presentation ready. <br>
<br>
Yes, then we should better wait. - But up to now I still
follow this argument that action is something which the
human brain needs to structure the world so that it <br>
fits into our brains. Particles which react to each
other do not have this need. They react to a force, and
the force and also the reaction to it can be
infinitesimal. <br>
An action is (by my understanding) something which
happens or does not happen. I do not see infinitesimal
single steps which each can be understood as an <br>
action. So, this is my argument that action is a typical
case of "human understanding". <br>
<br>
SRT: <br>
<br>
"First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do
with gravity. Why do you connect it to gravity?" Because
I have seen the twin paradox explained by <br>
including gravity in text books. clocks slow down
because of velocity but speed up because of acceleration
the two cancel when two twins are accelerated with <br>
constant acceleration for the first quarter of the trip,
the ship turned around decelerated for the second
quarter and continued to be accelerated toward the start
<br>
point, during the third quarter and then rocket reverses
for the third quarter and come to rest rest at the
origin where the second twin has been waiting at rest. <br>
Now both twins will agree on the amount of time passing.
The paradox is said to be resolved because Einstein's
Srt is expanded to GRT and gravity is introduced. <br>
<br>
Can you please give me a reference to a text book which
connects the twin paradox to gravity? I never heard
about such an idea; and the discussion about <br>
ageing refers to the time dilation in SRT. You can
perform this twin paradox in an environment where no
gravitational sources are around, and it would work as <br>
usually described. <br>
<br>
According to SRT clocks slow down because of velocity.
The degree of slow-down is related to the speed of the
clocks and to nothing else. Acceleration or <br>
deceleration have no influence to the behaviour of
clock. This statement you will find uniformly in all
textbooks. <br>
<br>
Then you write: "... and then rocket reverses for the
third quarter and come to rest rest at the origin where
the second twin has been waiting at rest." Now I am <br>
confused. I have understood that both twins move and
change their motion at exactly the same times. How can
it then happen that on twin is at rest and expects <br>
the other one? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"And second: the whole process as you describe it is
completely symmetrical. Both twins make the same
experience with time and with there according ageing. <br>
Where the hell do you see a paradox?" The paradox is
that both twins see the other moving at a constant
velocity for an arbitrarily long period of time <br>
<br>
why for an arbitrarily long period of time? It is only
for the time until the other twin changes his speed. <br>
<br>
and each one would according to SRT calculate the other
twin has aged relative to himself. both cannot be right.
by making the acceleration period small and <br>
symmetric the coast period large i eliminate the gravity
explanation but retain an arbitrarily long constant
velocity. SO SRT HAS A PARADOX AND IT CANNOT BE <br>
RESOLVED IN GRT. <br>
<br>
Perhaps I understand now where you see the paradox.
Assume the following case which is sometimes discussed.
There are two observers, A and B, and both <br>
have clocks with them. We assume that both observers
move with respect to each other. Then observer A will
find that the clock of observer B runs more slowly. <br>
But as both observers are physically equivalent also
observer B will find that the clock of observer A runs
more slowly. <br>
<br>
This sounds like a paradox or even like a logical
conflict. But it is not. To see why not we have to have
a closer look on how clock speeds (or the time in
different <br>
frames) are compared. It is not as simple as it looks
like. <br>
<br>
If the observer A will compare his clock run with the
one of observer B, he will e.g. place two of his clocks,
which we will call clock 1 and clock 2 (and which he <br>
has of course synchronized) along the path of observer
B. Then he will compare the clock of observer B with his
clock 1 and then with clock 2 in the moment <br>
when the observer B passes these clocks. The result will
be that the clock of observer B have run more slowly. <br>
<br>
But how now the other way around? The observer B can of
course compare his clock with both clocks of observer A
when he passes these clocks. But now a <br>
difference: Both clocks of observer A have been
synchronized in the frame of A. But in the frame of B
they will not be synchronized (a fundamental fact in
SRT). <br>
From the view of observer B the clock 1 of observer A
will be retarded with respect to the clock 2. So, the
observer B can reproduce the observation of observer <br>
A in the way that observer A sees the clock of B slowed
down. But observer B will use a different method to
determine the speed of the clocks of observer A. <br>
Observe B will also position two clocks along the path
which observer A follows in frame B and he will
synchronize these clocks in his frame B. And with his
clocks <br>
he will find that the clocks of A run slower compared to
his own ones. <br>
<br>
This different clock synchronization follows from the
time-related part of the Lorentz transformation: <br>
<br>
t = gamma*(t'-vx/c2) with gamma = sqrt(1/(1 - v2/c2)).
Regarding the example above v is the speed between the
frames of A and of B. <br>
<br>
Is this understandable? (I have presented it in Porto
Novo when I talked about the problem of de Broglie with
SRT.) If not clear, please ask further questions I <br>
and shall go into more details. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
do my Emails show up <br>
<br>
I CC'd you and you should get this directly and in <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
<br>
<br>
Let me know if you get them <br>
<br>
I have received your mail once. But last time also
Chandra and Adrew have answered. So the general
distribution seems to work <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Wolf <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Wolfgang Baer <br>
Research Director <br>
Nascent Systems Inc. <br>
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432 <br>
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a> <br>
<br>
On 5/20/2017 12:19 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra wrote: <br>
<br>
Hi Andrew W.: <br>
<br>
Yes, I basically agree with you that STR is not a theory
of physics. It is smart mathematics only. <br>
<br>
Whereas, photoelectric equation is physics, even though,
quantization is postulated wrongly on EM waves, rather
than on quantum mechanically bound <br>
electrons! <br>
<br>
Chandra. <br>
<br>
================================== <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message----- <br>
From: General [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]
On Behalf Of ANDREW WORSLEY <br>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:24 AM <br>
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
; <br>
Wolfgang Baer <br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi all <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
STR is a complex subject - all observers are equal - but
then implies reciprocity, that's the bit that's flawed
actually <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
======================================== <br>
<br>
Message Received: May 18 2017, 08:34 PM <br>
<br>
From: "Albrecht Giese" <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
To: "Wolfgang Baer" , "Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion" <br>
<br>
Cc: <br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [General] HA: Gravity <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Wolf, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
again comments in the text. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Am 15.05.2017 um 02:01 schrieb Wolfgang Baer: <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">No Kc is the spring constant of
the force holding charge and mass <br>
together <br>
</blockquote>
That means a force between charge and mass? To my
understanding mass and charge are completely different
categories as a wrote last time. Charge is a <br>
permanent property of some object, whereas mass is a
dynamical process which also changes when the object
changes its motion state (which at the end is : <br>
relativity). <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In order to build a framework of
a physical theory that properly <br>
includes the observer as a measurement model building
and acting <br>
component I use a very simplified concept built on the
classic <br>
metaphysical ideas that mass,charge, space, time along
with the forces <br>
between them are fundamental. Here are some of the
differences between <br>
my cognitive action theory CAT and classic physics <br>
</blockquote>
Just a question at this point: to which set of
"metaphysical ideas" do you refer? If we refer to main
stream physics, at least mass is a different category.
And also <br>
time and space are most probably different categories
from the others, at least for some of the physical
community. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">* Summary of Action Theory
additions to Classic Physical Concepts* <br>
The examples provided in this section are intended to
show how action <br>
theory is applied to well known and observable
situations that can be <br>
compared with analysis using classical physics
concepts. What CAT has <br>
added is summarized as follows: <br>
-Change involving transitions between states is where
physics is <br>
happening. <br>
-Change, visualized as stable action patterns,
propagates through <br>
material media. <br>
-The degrees of freedom of classical systems has been
doubled by <br>
separating mass and charge. <br>
-Internal material forces between mass and charge are
introduced as <br>
heuristic visualizations to augment understanding of
the interior of <br>
matter which is conventionally the domain of quantum
theory (see <br>
chapter 6) <br>
-Mach’s principle and the connection between the
inertial field is <br>
introduced in place of the observational pseudo forces
such as the <br>
centrifugal force and “m∙a” in Newton’s formulation.
(See Appendix on <br>
Mach’s Principle) <br>
-Time is defined as the name of the state of the
system adopted as a <br>
clock, and time intervals are measured as action
required to change a <br>
state separated by a constant state distance. <br>
Action theory is being developed as the physical
underpinnings of an <br>
event oriented world view and a description of reality
which includes <br>
both the subjective and objective aspect of reality
described by CAT. <br>
</blockquote>
The question here is again: what is more fundamental,
action or force? <br>
<br>
In the reductionist's world the fundamental processes
are very simple but go on in a huge number. So, it is a
tendency, or a good strategy of our brains to build <br>
categories. For instance, there are billions of trees on
our earth. No brain of a human being is able to register
and to remember all these trees. So, our brain build <br>
the category "tree". <br>
<br>
That is helpful. But the cells in the trees have no
logical connection to the category-building, they follow
fundamental rules. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In an analogue way, there is a force between charges
(else not!). If objects move which have charges the
forces will cause that the motion of the objects is <br>
influenced, the path changes accordingly. That is
fundamental. A human brain can now build the category of
an "action" to describe, or better: to categories this <br>
process. This brain-related process is in my view a less
fundamental view to the world, even though a helpful
one. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But again: mass and charge are not the same category. It
is true that there would be no inertia if there would
not be charges in the world. <br>
<br>
But taken in this was, mass is a consequence of charges
(and a dynamical consequence). So one could say: a
consequence on a higher level. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And for "time" I agree that this is a structural way of
humans to categorize motion. "Space" may be a structural
way to treat the effect of charges. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*Twin Paradox:* <br>
You mentioned the twin paradox is explained by the
Lorenz <br>
transformation since t'=t/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) which
describes time dilation <br>
How do you avoid the paradox in the following
experiment <br>
Two twins are accelerated with a small short pulse in
opposite directions. <br>
At some very long time they are both reversed with a
double pulse <br>
when they meet they are stopped by a short pulse. <br>
The experiment is completely symmetric. both twins
experience the same <br>
acceleration pulse so gravity clock effects are equal
and can be <br>
eliminated from a comparison but not eliminated is the
arbitrarily <br>
long period where they are traveling with a velocity
relative to each <br>
other. Since the time dilation formula only contains <br>
velocity squared the direction of relative travel does
not make a <br>
difference. If the theory is correct there is a
paradox and gravity <br>
cannot explain it. <br>
</blockquote>
First: this whole process has absolutely nothing to do
with gravity. Why <br>
<br>
do you connect it to gravity? <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And second: the whole process as you describe it is
completely <br>
<br>
symmetrical. Both twins make the same experience with
time and with <br>
<br>
there according ageing. Where the hell do you see a
paradox? I cannot <br>
<br>
see a paradox and the whole thing is as simple as it can
be. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">*do my Emails show up in the
general discussion I keep only getting <br>
replies from people who send them directly and my
E-mails do not show <br>
up in the discussion forum, so I'm wondering?* <br>
</blockquote>
To test it, you may sent this mail again without my
address in the list; <br>
<br>
then I can tell you (if informed) if I got it. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Best, <br>
wolf <br>
</blockquote>
Best <br>
<br>
Albrecht <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Virenfrei. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.avast.com" moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe <br>
</a> <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
--- <br>
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren
geprüft. <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<br>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe <br>
</a> <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color:
#41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>