﻿ a little reflection about causes and effects

### a little reflection about causes and effects

 1 beda pietanza a little reflection about causes and effects Tuesday 28 April 2020 2 Nicolaas Vroom Re :a little reflection about causes and effects Friday 1 May 2020 3 tjrob137 Re :a little reflection about causes and effects Wednesday 13 May 2020 4 tjrob137 Re :a little reflection about causes and effects Wednesday 13 May 2020 5 tjrob137 Re :a little reflection about causes and effects Thursday 14 May 2020 6 Nicolaas Vroom Re :a little reflection about causes and effects Thursday 14 May 2020

a little reflection about causes and effects
194 posts by 16 authors

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/Qlg2pAs-3Z0 keywords = Thought experiments, Einstein

### 1 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: beda pietanza
Datum: Tuesday 28 April 2020
What really strangeness about the relativistic effects is that two objects moving in their own, have effects on each other without any cause or interaction that generate those effect. If the observer on the stationary SR frame, measures the passing by ruler in the frame relatively moving, how does this make the measured ruler contracted without any whatsoever action upon that passing by frame??? And what and why there should be reciprocality without any physical interaction between the two frames??? In nature, there are causes and effects generated by those acting causes. the cause to produce any effects has to physically interact with the objects affected, directly or indirectly through a medium. In SR this doesn't happen the two frames and all the objects situated in them are not interacting at all, so, from where arises the frame dependency and the reciprocities ???? indeed there is not any physical interaction, only a math model that has just an abstract math correlation with the objects involved, nothing real just math trickery.

Let'us turn to real-world, an object moving in space if there is an effect this effect has to be generated by a cause that operates upon the object itself, the cause is the movement, so, the time rate slowing can be generated only by the movement of the object the same as the contraction only the proper movement can generate a contraction on the moving object If the movement of the object undergoes to change because of the movement, then this movement as to be absolute, or be relative to the local space.

The true relative interaction between two inertial moving objects are when they collide, then the only cause is the collision and the effects are due to the sum of the two kinetic energies, for the rest, two independent moving objects don't' have anything to do with each other.

cheers beda

### 2 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Friday 1 May 2020
On Tuesday, 28 April 2020 23:21:49 UTC+2, beda pietanza wrote:
 > What really strangeness about the relativistic effects is that two objects moving in their own, have effects on each other without any cause or interaction that generates those effect.

Which specif effect do you have in mind? Do you mean the moon around the earth? Why do you call that a relativistic effect?

 > If the observer on the stationary SR frame measures the passing by ruler in the frame relatively moving, how does this make the measured ruler contracted without any whatsoever action upon that passing by frame???

I don't fully understand what you mean. IMO it is always tricky when different frames are involved. IMO generally speaking, when you measure something, does not involve any physical change. Of course, that is not always exactly true. When you measure the temperature of water with a thermometer the water temperature changes slightly. For a long time in this newsgroup, I tried to find a good answer on the question: What is the simplest experiment to demonstrate physical length contraction.

 > In SR this doesn't happen etc.
What do you mean by that? In the physical world, you can make observations or perform experiments. The purpose of science is to try to explain what is observed. In the case of an experiment, there is always one action (pressing a start button) and one or a range of effects. The purpose of science is to identify the range of intermediate actions and reactions that caused the final results.

 > Let'us turn to real-world, an object moving in space if there is an effect this effect has to be generated by a cause that operates upon the object itself, the cause is the movement, so, the time rate slowing can be generated only by the movement of the object

It is not exactly clear what you mean. What do you mean by time rate? Related to time the only thing that is physical are the clock counts or ticks by a clock.

 > the same as the contraction only the proper movement can generate a contraction on the moving object

Also, this is not very clear what you mean.

 > If the movement of the object undergoes to change because of the movement, then this movement has to be absolute, or be relative to the local space.

The problem in science is when you use concepts like absolute or relative you have to define what you mean.

Nicolaas Vroom

### 3 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: tjrob137
Datum: Wednesday 13 May 2020
On 5/12/20 12:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
 > Mr Roberts says that we can't count photons. That means, in case you don't get it, that we can't determine photon frequencies.

You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to summarize what I say. Please stop.

Yes, it is not possible to count INDIVIDUAL photons. But from measurements of a monochromatic light beam's intensity and frequency we can get an approximate count; in practice that count can be quite accurate (i.e. small errorbars), just not exact.

You might be tempted to think that by reducing the intensity of the beam, ultimately one would be counting individual photons. Nope -- look up Poisson statistics.

Similarly, one cannot ascribe any frequency to an INDIVIDUAL photon, but one can most definitely measure the frequency of a monochromatic light beam containing many, many photons (again, small errorbars).

Note that by discussing individual photons I am speaking loosely.

As I keep saying: you REALLY need to learn basic physics. Your GUESSES are wrong. This is more complicated and subtle than you think; indeed, given your colossal ignorance, it is more complicated and subtle than it is possible for you to think.

Tom Roberts

### 4 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: tjrob137
Datum: Wednesday 13 May 2020
On 5/12/20 12:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
 > Of course you can count photons. Do a web search on single-photon counters.

They do not accurately count photons. It's just that they are sensitive enough to respond to a single photon. Look up Poisson statistics.

In that phrase, "counter" does not really mean it is able to count photons. It comes from common experimental physics usage in which a counter detects something (here photons). This usage is far older than I am. Such counters can indeed count THE ONES THEY DETECT, but they do not, and can not, count the others they don't detect.

BTW I have participated in an experiment that used VLPCs (visible light photon counters). They must be kept at cryogenic temperatures to not be overwhelmed by thermal noise. I am not expert and only know the basics.

Tom Roberts

### 5 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: tjrob137
Datum: Thursday 14 May 2020
On 5/13/20 1:21 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
 > Tom Roberts wrote:
 >> But from measurements of a monochromatic light beam's intensity and frequency we can get an approximate count;
 > [...]
 >> Similarly, one cannot ascribe any frequency to an INDIVIDUAL photon, but one can most definitely measure the frequency of a monochromatic light beam containing many, many photons (again, small errorbars).
 > Is that anywhere near good enough for Bodkin's "experimentally confirmed linear relationship between photon energy and photon frequency?

Certainly. Where do you think physicists learned about that linear relationship?

[Other experiments and measurements are much better for determining that relationship.]

 >> Note that by discussing individual photons I am speaking loosely.
 > Try to get it into your pointy little head that ranting about your theory's postulates as if they were fact is *not* conducive to prductive debate.

I am neither "ranting" nor discussing "postulates", and I am not treating any of this as fact. But I am describing how modern physics models this, and those models have survived MANY, MANY experimental tests.

Your comprehensive ignorance and colossal arrogance prevent you from learning about modern physics. How sad -- it is a marvelous and interesting subject.

Tom Roberts

### 6 a little reflection about causes and effects

From: Nicolaas Vroom
Datum: Thursday 14 May 2020
On Wednesday, 13 May 2020 03:52:50 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

 > On 5/12/20 12:44 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
 > > Mr Roberts says that we can't count photons. That means, in case you don't get it, that we can't determine photon frequencies.

There are clearly two issues: To count photons and to determine the frequency of a photon.

 > You are UTTERLY INCOMPETENT to attempt to summarize what I say. Please stop. Yes, it is not possible to count INDIVIDUAL photons.

Counting individual photons you can use a Geiger Muller Counter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter In that article you can read: "Geiger counters are widely used to detect gamma radiation and X-rays collectively known as photons, and for this, the windowless tube is used. However, detection efficiency is low compared to alpha and beta particles."

The point I want to make if you want to count individual photons you must study the inner workings of the counter. A mathematical description is not good enough.

 > But from measurements of a monochromatic light beam's intensity and frequency we can get an approximate count; in practice that count can be quite accurate (i.e. small errorbars), just not exact. You might be tempted to think that by reducing the intensity of the beam, ultimately one would be counting individual photons. Nope -- look up Poisson statistics.

For a Poisson distribution read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution The article reads: "For instance, an individual keeping track of the amount of mail they receive each day may notice that they receive an average number of 4 letters per day." The problem is that in some sense this is a bad example. What you should do is to monitor the mail received for each day of the week and calculate the distribution for each day of the week.

However using statistics, to evaluate the result of a Geiger Muller counter IMO does not make sense. The only way is as I said above is to study its inner workings and by trying different counters.

 > Similarly, one cannot ascribe any frequency to an INDIVIDUAL photon, but one can most definitely measure the frequency of a monochromatic light beam containing many, many photons.

IMO the frequency of each individual photon is the same in a monochromatic light beam (By definition?)

What I don't understand what is so tricky about the subject of individual photons. In the quantum realm, I often read about interference patterns With single or double-slit experiments using individual photons. I always thought that these experiments are relatively easy.

In the next posting tjrob137 wrote:
 > Such counters can indeed count THE ONES THEY DETECT, but they do not, and can not, count the others they don't detect.
I have to smile when I read that.

Nicolaas Vroom.