<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Grahame,</p>
<p>the point of <u>acceleration</u> is a very important one in my
view, as 1.) it is misunderstood by many and 2.) it points to an
error in GRT which I shall detail further down. <br>
</p>
<p>The case of SRT is easy. Time dilation and contraction (of
fields, space, .. whatever) only depends on the actual speed of a
system. Whether this speed is part of an acceleration process or a
constant speed has no influence. You will find this also in
textbooks about SRT. There is nowhere a formula given which
relates dilation (or whatever) to the actual acceleration.<br>
</p>
<p><u>Reciprocity</u> in SRT is given. It is formally and physically
given if we follow the SRT interpretation of Einstein. It is also
formally given but physically violated in the interpretation of
Lorentz because for Lorentz there is an absolute frame at rest.
The apparent reciprocity in calculations and experiments is caused
here by the fact that at motion in relation to the fixed system
the physical quantities change but at the same time the
measurement tools change so that the effects exactly compensate.
Example is the speed of light which is in the Lorentzian system in
no way constant but is measured as constant because clocks etc.
change at motion in the way needed.<br>
</p>
<p>Regarding GRT, however, <u>acceleration</u> is a very critical
point. The strong <u>equivalence principle</u> is the essential
basis for Einstein's GRT. However, this principle is violated.
Acceleration and gravity are physically different and can be
distinguished. Two examples for this: 1.) An electron radiates
when accelerated, it does not radiate when at rest in a
gravitational field. 2.) Clock time is slowed down in a
gravitational field but it is not slowed down with respect to any
acceleration. If an object is accelerated and so in motion, time
is slowed down but only with respect of the actual speed, not with
respect to the acceleration. A clear experimental proof for this
was the muon storage ring at CERN. The life time of the muons was
extended, but the extension was in relation to the speed (close to
c), but not in relation to the enormous acceleration in the ring.
If that would have an effect, the life time should have been
extended by another factor of at least 1000. <br>
</p>
<p>That is an interesting point because without the strong
equivalence principle the GRT of Einstein has no logical basis. <br>
</p>
<p>And anyway, I want to warn of the uncritical use of "principles".
A principle is in my view not a physical law but a preliminary
detection of a rule. Could we imagine that a particle "knows" that
it has to follow a principle? That would be like religion. -- So,
if a principle is detected, the next goal should always be to find
the physical law(s) behind the principle. In the case of SRT this
is not done by Einstein but by Lorentz.<br>
</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 04.06.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:8B188D8509FE471BA7D89B497A179CF9@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Hi Albrecht,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I agree fully
with at least your first four paragraphs. It looks as if you
may not have read my email in full: in my 4th-from-last
paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which effectively
summarise all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4
paras.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I'm not sure that
I agree, though, with your observation on acceleration.
Constant acceleration is of course just a steady transition
through inertial frames, so that transition has an effect on
relationships between an accelerating frame and a
non-accelerating frame (or another constantly-accelerating
frame) that fits with principles of SR; I suppose it depends
on what you mean by "does not play any role". I believe that
the Equivalence Principle, equating effects of acceleration to
effects of an equivalent gravitational field, has pretty good
experimental credentials.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">For me, though,
the important thing is the claimed <strong>reciprocity</strong>
of SR, which in turn leads to the claim of frame symmetry.
The fact is, that reciprocity is also borne out by experiment,
including in particle accelerator experiments. The critical
point here, though, is that this reciprocity is reciprocity of
<strong>measurement</strong>. That's why I refer to aspects
of SR as 'observer effects'.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Apart from in my
own writings I haven't seen <strong>any</strong> explanation
for that observed reciprocity that doesn't depend on objective
inertial frame symmetry. Such an explanation is essential to
non-symmetric explanations of anomolous aberration of
starlight, for example, as well as various particle
accelerator experiments. I have fully explored this issue and
have derived reciprocal relationships for observers on the
move who observe events in a static frame: I have shown that
for fully subjective reasons such observers (and instruments)
will yield results that appear to show the Lorentz
Transformation acting reciprocally - thus 'proving' objective
frame symmetry. Without such an explanation any claim that SR
is <strong>not</strong> an objective reality cannot hold
water.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I agree also that
principles that establish SR as an explainable phenomenon can
be extended to GR, including every aspect of the Equivalence
Principle. But this of course depends on a rational
explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance'
interaction of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by
such bodies comes about. This I have also done, simply by
reference to phenomena already discussed and widely agreed.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT:
5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color:
black"><b>From:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
title="phys@a-giese.de" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">Albrecht
Giese</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 03,
2017 8:01 PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Fw:
STR twin Paradox</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>Hi Grahame,</p>
<p>fully agreement that Einstein's relativity is a working
theory but does not have any causal explanation. This has to
do with the general attitude of Einstein with respect to
science when he developed relativity. But before Einstein,
Hendrik Lorentz had already started to work on these problems,
and his approach does in fact have causal physical
explanations.</p>
<p>Shortly after the Michelson-Morley experiment Oliver
Heaviside presented a calculation (1888), deduced from
Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, that an electrical field
necessarily contracts at motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if
fields contract also objects will contract at motion. If this
happens also the apparatus of the MM experiment would contract
at motion. And if it contracts, so the conclusion of Lorentz,
the null-result of the experiment is fully explained even if
an ether should exist. <br>
</p>
<p>Next step is dilation. It was (to my knowledge) already
suspected by Lorentz and it was later found by Schrödinger
(1930) that inside elementary particles there is a permanent
motion with c, the speed of light. If this is assumed it
follows geometrically that any elementary particle acts like a
light clock and its internal motion and so its frequency is
reduced in the way described by the Lorentz transformation.
The reduction of the internal frequency propagates to all
cases of motion in physics.<br>
</p>
<p>This is special relativity. But the considerations of Lorentz
can be also extended to general relativity, and the result is
a mathematical model which fully conforms to the one of
Einstein but is also based on physical explanations.</p>
<p>Another point in this discussion: Acceleration <b>does not
play any role </b>in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT.
The reference to acceleration in case of e.g. the twin paradox
comes from the (indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration
of one party / one twin this one will leave his inertial
frame. So the Lorentz transformation does not apply any
longer. But, not to confuse it here, an acceleration does not
give any quantitative contribution to the processes treated by
SRT and GRT. <br>
</p>
<p>Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity: Following Lorentz makes relativity much better
understandable than the one of Einstein, and it avoids all
paradoxes which I know. This applies particularly to GRT which
becomes so simple that it can be treated at school, whereas
the Einsteinian is too complicated even for most students of
physics.</p>
<p>Albrecht<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.06.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Dr
Grahame Blackwell:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:237B0F2B64224657A5D147526B6B420B@vincent"
type="cite">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Hi Wolf,
Albrecht, John W et al.,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I want to
express complete agreement with John W on the role of
accel'n/grav'n in resolving any apparent paradox in the
twins saga.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">I must first,
though, draw attention to what appears to be an elementary
error in Wolf's analysis (unless I've totally
misunderstood you, Wolf - I can't see how this would be
the case).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Wolf, you
propose (quite reasonably) that each twin is initially
moving away from the other at speed 'v'. You then propose
a variation in each twin's clock as perceived by the
other, delta-t'. However your expression for that
delta-t' shows the other twin's clock progressing FASTER
than that of the observer-twin (13 months instead of 12
months) - whereas of course the whole point of SRT is that
the moving clock progresses SLOWER than that of the static
observer. This is due to a common fallacy, of applying
the time-dilation factor, which gives the extended
duration of each second, say, in the moving frame as
observed from the static frame (hence the phrase
'time-dilation'), to the apparent time-passed in that
moving frame. This makes the ratio of observed/observer
clock-time the inverse of what it should be according to
SRT. The perceived elapsed time in the moving frame
should be observer time multiplied by the INVERSE of the
Lorentz Factor.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This doesn't
totally destroy your argument (though it does render it
rather less plausible), since you are implying that on
re-meeting the apparent accumulated difference will not be
shown on either clock - as of course it couldn't be.
However, as John W points out, any apparent difference
will be precisely wiped out by acceleration
considerations: SRT is 100% internally self-consistent, it
cannot be faulted on ANY application of its assertions
with respect to time.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">However, the
fact that it's internally self-consistent doesn't make it
RIGHT. It's not difficult to envisage a set of
mathematical rules - for instance, relating to
trajectories - that give totally self-consistent results
but don't accord with practical observations.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Here's where
it gets interesting. Because of course results of
calculations in SRT DO fit with practical observations,
and have done so for over a century. The question then
arises as to why this should be so - since, unlike pretty
well every other branch of physics, no causal explanation
has been found (or even sought?) for effects in spacetime
as given by SRT. It's been tacitly accepted by the
mainstream physics community as "That's just how it is".
This is a statement of belief, not of science - the prime
directive of science is to ask "Why?"</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">When I
started on my own scientific investigations 20 years ago I
took SRT totally at face value, totally uncritically. I
didn't actually start by asking "Why?" in relation to
SRT. As I progressed with my research, essentially into
aspects on electromagnetic waves anf the fundamental
nature of time, it gradually became apparent that there IS
a "Why!". That 'why' rests on the fact that all material
objects are formed from electromagnetic energy (hence E =
Mc-squared); in a moving object that energy is travelling
linearly as well as cyclically within the object - and
this combined motion beautifully explains EVERY aspect of
SRT.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This
explanation boils down to two considerations:</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">(1) Material
objects are affected by their formative energy-flows
moving linearly as well as cyclically, giving rise to
time-dilation precisely in accordance with the formula
given by SRT and Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as also
'imported' into SRT;</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">(2) Material
objects which happen to be (a) observers or (b) measuring
instruments are likewise affected in both these respects
when in motion, giving all other observed consequences
detailed by SRT - as observer effects.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">[As a point
of detail, it IS possible to show the fallacy in SRT only
if you consider matters from the level of particle
formation, rather than complete particles.]</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">In other
words, ALL observed phenomena that appear to confirm SRT
(and also, in fact, GRT) can be fully explained WITHOUT
the 'metaphysical' claim that "All inertial reference
frames are equivalent" - that claim by SRT is a myth, one
that has NO support in the evidence claimed for it. It is
a totally superfluous add-on to our picture of physical
reality.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">This being
the case, the requirement (by mainstream physics) that all
phenomena/fields/whatever MUST conform to that claim is
arguably holding us back from making significant
breakthroughs in our understanding of reality -
breakthroughs that might even (dare I say it?) take us to
the stars. We are fencing ourselves in with an imaginary
boundary.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" color="#000080" size="2">Grahame</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<div style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><b>From:</b>
<a title="wolf@nascentinc.com"
href="mailto:wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolfgang
Baer</a> </div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a
title="general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists..natureoflightandparticles.org</a>
</div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:46 AM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] STR twin Paradox</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<p>
<meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document">
</p>
<p>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11">
<style>@page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin: .5in; mso-footer-margin: .5in; mso-paper-source: 0; }
P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-style-parent: ""; mso-pagination: widow-orphan; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</style> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albrecht:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tell me why this is not thought
experiment that shows Einsteins SRT interpretation gives
rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Twin Paradox Experiment:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Z-INDEX: 1; POSITION:
absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 229px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><img
src="cid:part5.4B519922.87A0E2CC@a-giese.de" height="59"
width="64"></span><span style="Z-INDEX: 2; POSITION:
absolute; MARGIN-TOP: 46px; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 58px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 280px; mso-ignore: vglayout"><img
src="cid:part6.59E0A1C6.DAA611D6@a-giese.de" height="58"
width="64"></span>1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space
far away from all local masses two identical twins are
accelerated to opposite velocities so that each thinks the
other is traveling away from themselves at velocity “v”.<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</span>By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent
of a temporary gravitational force which slows their clocks
the same amount. They are now drifting apart </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="7" width="148"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="144"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="58"><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part7.83410150.55EB755B@a-giese.de"
height="58" width="64"></td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part8.E8BA6795.29B841FA@a-giese.de"
height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="1"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">2) Each of the twins feels he is standing
still and the other twin is moving with a constant velocity
“v” away. According to special relativity the relation
between their own time Δt and the time they believe the
other twins elapsed time <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Δt’
is; Δt’ = Δt/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="2" width="1"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
<td width="437"><br>
</td>
<td width="66"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="3" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part9.255F8F58.25449524@a-giese.de"
height="66" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="59"><br>
</td>
<td><br>
</td>
<td align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part10.D07FC92C.774C2B76@a-giese.de"
height="59" width="66"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="4"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">3) </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>clock he believes twin
two’s clock is Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>1</sub>/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>
After 1 year on Twin 1’s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>clock
he believes twin two’s clock is Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>/
(1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>= 12
months Lets assume the velocities are such that Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 13 months.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4) After one year on their own clock each
twin fires a retro rocket that reverses their velocities. By
the equivalence principle the both clocks experience a
gravity like force and their clocks speed up. Lets assume
the acceleration lasts 1 day on their own clocks so now <span
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
12 months + 1day and knowing the plan Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’
= 13m + 1d</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ignore: vglayout"></span></p>
<table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="4" width="154"><br>
</td>
<td width="64"><br>
</td>
<td width="143"><br>
</td>
<td width="65"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="3"><br>
</td>
<td colspan="2"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part11.00FBECBC.C408F6EB@a-giese.de"
height="59" width="65"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="56"><br>
</td>
<td rowspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><img
src="cid:part12.C022B496.912A180A@a-giese.de"
height="64" width="64"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="8"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<br style="mso-ignore: vglayout" clear="all">
<p class="MsoNormal">5) Now the two twins are drifting with
the same relative velocity but toward each other with
opposite signs. Each twin thinks the others clocks are
lowing down by the formula Δt’ = Δt/ (1-v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup>.
They drift for exactly one year and now Δt<sub>1</sub>= Δt<sub>2</sub>=
24 months + 1day and they believing in special relativity
think Δt<sub>1</sub>’ = Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 26 months.+
1.083days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="Z-INDEX: 6; POSITION:
relative; mso-ignore: vglayout"><span style="POSITION:
absolute; WIDTH: 64px; HEIGHT: 59px; TOP: -22px; LEFT:
264px"><img
src="cid:part13.4237B62A.2E8F2494@a-giese.de"
height="59" width="64"></span></span><span
style="Z-INDEX: 5; POSITION: relative; mso-ignore:
vglayout"><span style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 64px;
HEIGHT: 59px; TOP: -21px; LEFT: 213px"><img
src="cid:part14.49C7A4DB.0C9FEBEA@a-giese.de"
height="59" width="64"></span></span><span
style="mso-tab-count: 4">
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6) now the stop rocket fires for half a
day on each twins clock and the twins come to rest exactly
at the place they started. Their own clocks tell Δt<sub>1</sub>=
Δt<sub>2</sub>= 24 months + 1.5day and they believing in
special relativity think the others clock should be Δt<sub>1</sub>’
= Δt<sub>2</sub>’ = 26 months.+ 1.583days.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><span
style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span>They get out
of their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that the two
clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief in special
relativity was wrong. </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
cite="mid:666dc9c5-a2ae-72b5-99e4-864dd32cb890@a-giese.de"
type="cite">
<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>
</blockquote>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" 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>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="BORDER-TOP: #d3d4de 1px solid">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="WIDTH: 55px; PADDING-TOP: 18px"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
style="WIDTH: 46px; HEIGHT: 29px" alt=""
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; WIDTH: 470px; FONT-FAMILY:
Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #41424e;
FONT-SIZE: 13px; PADDING-TOP: 17px">Virenfrei. <a
moz-do-not-send="true" style="COLOR: #4453ea"
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank">www.avast.com</a> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p> </p>
<hr> _______________________________________________<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:grahame@starweave.com">grahame@starweave.com</a><br>
<a
href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
</blockquote>
<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">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">"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>
</body>
</html>