[General] STR twin Paradox

Wed Aug 23 06:34:30 PDT 2017

Chip et al,

I've tried to stay out of this as there are numerous prior (unsupported) assumptions flying around that generate plenty of heat but no light.

Chip, I agree with you 100% that effects attributed to relativity can be explained fully by reference to mechanistic processes - there is absolutely no need for some metaphysical property of space-time that results in objects BEING (not just appearing) different lengths just because observers are in different states of motion and two clocks BOTH going slower than each other. With no logical requirement for such absurdities, belief in them makes belief in some old guy sitting on a cloud running the universe seem pretty tame by comparison. Those 'scientists' who deride the concept of a supreme being (or, more reasonably, universal nonphysical consciousness) should see to the log in their own eye before falling about in hoots over the speck in someone else's.

Having said that, I'm afraid, Chip, that you are NOT going to disprove SR by reference to the mathematics of space-time as embodied in that theory.  SR is entirely self-consistent (even though wrong), a faultless body of math that just doesn't happen to correspond to reality.  Hammering away at the twins paradox - or any variation thereof - is batting on a losing wicket.  Physics is totally hogtied by the math of SR - that's why it's so difficult to shift perceptions on the matter.

Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chip Akins 
  To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' ; 'Viv Robinson' 
  Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' ; 'Innes Morrison' ; 'Mark,Martin van der' 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:20 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Hi John W

  Thank you for your comments my friend.

  One thing which seems evident from your response is that you underestimate my understanding of SRT and relativity theory in general.

  Both you and Viv have gone back to the same explanations, which I used to give, to try to explain the problem.  You see I have studied relativity with great interest for many decades. I have no problem thinking about relativity in spacetime terms. I spent years believing the form of relativity you and Viv suggest was correct. But once we spend enough time, effort, and thought, trying to force fit all the pieces of a puzzle in the wrong manner, we sometimes have an epiphany, and awakening, which helps clear the picture so we can see how it should fit.

  What I have found, and am attempting to share with this intelligent and inquisitive group, is that portions of SRT are quite arbitrary, unnecessary to explain what we see in experiment, and probably just simply wrong.  The transformations are pre Einstein, and were appropriated by Einstein for SRT, but the part of SRT which is unnecessary to explain what we observe, is specifically the "all motion is relative" part.

  John Stewart Bell apparently also ran into these issues in his research as well.  This prompted him to write.." I would say that the cheapest resolution is something like going back to relativity as it was before Einstein, when people like Lorentz and Poincar´e thought that there was an aether - a preferred frame of reference - but that our measuring instruments were distorted by motion in such a way that we could not detect motion through the aether. Now, in that way you can imagine that there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference (some) things do go faster than light"." Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant, a pre-Einstein position of Lorentz and Poincar´e, Larmor and Fitzgerald, was perfectly coherent, and is not inconsistent with relativity theory. The idea that there is an aether, and these Fitzgerald contractions and Larmor dilations occur, and that as a result the instruments do not detect motion through the aether - that is a perfectly coherent point of view."

  What Bell wrote does not outline my full perception of the subject, but it is very close to what I have come to understand after many years of research.  Just want to mention that I suspect there is also a specific form of "frame dragging" caused by the gravitation of quite massive objects which has to be considered.

  Experiment has not verified the all motion is relative part of SRT. Experiment has verified the transformations!

  Euclidian space, and the constitution of light and matter, cause, quite naturally, a form of relativity which agrees with SRT, except the notion that all motion is relative.

  SRT was developed with the notion that the laws of nature remain the same for moving bodies. The form of relativity mentioned above causes the laws of nature to remain the same for moving bodies.  This is the point.  A form of relativity built on cause and effect is likely much more useful, and accurate.

  It is easy to establish cause and effect for relativity, but in that form of relativity all motion is not relative.  Motion is related to the background of space, in that causal form of relativity. In that form of relativity there are no logical inconsistencies, there are no mutually exclusive outcomes.

  One thing which caused me considerable grief a couple of years ago was realizing that I had built so much of my theoretical foundations on a flawed principle. It requires a lot of work to go back and redo so much work.  I know that this is the case for many.  But the results are worth it.

  So John, my friend.  You may choose to disregard the suggestion that the all motion is relative portion of SRT is in error. We all have our theoretical preferences.  

  I seldom make predictions, but I will make one now. 

  It may not happen within our lifetimes, but I feel that experiment will prove that all motion is not relative, and that motion is actually relative to the background of space.

  Chip

  From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
  Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:48 PM
  To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; 'Viv Robinson' <viv at universephysics.com>
  Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <darren at makemeafilm.com>; 'Innes Morrison' <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>; 'Mark, Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Dear Chip and everyone.

  This is very old problem. Martin, Viv and I have all had a go at explaining this over the last years, but all we are doing is repeating stuff which you should be reading in the textbooks. If you analyse special relativity properly there is no paradox here. There never was and there never will be. The first time I met this was in third year at University. I have had exam questions on it (though do not know if I got the answer right!).

  Where you are making your mistakes is right in your first premises. You say "For the sake of this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of synchronizing their clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to start recording data at the same time, like when each reaches a predetermined distance from the other." At this point you are already lost. You have assumed there is such a thing as a "place" and that one can define a "time". You need to understand that, in relativity, one mans space is (partly) another mans time. Each of the two can calculate what the other sees (if they know relativity), and conclude for them the space is at another time and vice versa. If you start from a point where you assume there both exists an absolute space with an everywhere defined "time" and the laws of relativity hold, then you will come to conclusions which give a paradox, indeed. This is not a problem for relativity, which explains perfectly what is observed (and does not have an absolute space or time), but a problem rather for your initial assumptions, or your way of thinking. 

  Regards, John.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 8:40 PM
  To: 'Viv Robinson'; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
  Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler'; 'Innes Morrison'; 'Mark, Martin van der'
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Hi Vivian

  I would like to return to a discussion briefly which was ensuing a couple of months ago.

  Thank you for the careful explanation offered in the email below.

  However the point I was attempting to make a couple of months ago, deals only with the concept that all motion is relative in SRT. 

  So let us set up an experiment which excludes all effects of GRT, acceleration, gravity etc. and only evaluates this notion of SRT that all motion is relative.

  We have two identical clocks, moving relative to each other.

  For the sake of this experiment, let us imagine that we have a means of synchronizing their clocks regardless of their separation. Or at least to start recording data at the same time, like when each reaches a predetermined distance from the other. (All Doppler effects accounted for.)

  An observer with clock A thinks clock B is moving.

  An observer with clock B thinks clock A is moving.

  After the "relative" motion has occurred for some time, the two clocks pass by in very close proximity to each other and exchange their data.

  The observer with clock A assumes the reading from Clock B will indicate that time has passed more slowly for B than for A.  The observer with clock B assumes the reading from Clock A will indicate that time has passed more slowly for A than for B. Both cannot be correct.

  Clearly because of this, there IS A PARADOX, and that paradox is undeniably embedded in the notion that all motion is relative. Bringing in arguments from other theories, and proclaiming that there is no paradox does not dismiss this logical problem inherent in SRT's notion that all motion is relative.

  If one clock is more stationary with regards to the CMB it is likely that is the one which will be more correct in their prediction of the clocks readings.

  They cannot both be correct. 

  If they cannot both be correct, then all motion is NOT relative, but time is slowed for objects moving relative to space itself.

  Chip

  From: Viv Robinson [mailto:viv at universephysics.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 10:44 PM
  To: Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com>; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
  Cc: 'Darren Eggenschwiler' <darren at makemeafilm.com>; 'Innes Morrison' <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>; 'Mark, Martin van der' <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
  Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

  Hi All,

  The best way to sort out a problem is to understand the physics behind a situation and then use mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the physical effect attributed to it. Lets look at the so called "twin paradox".

  Two observers O1 and O2 are next to and at rest with each other. Both have accurate atomic or whatever clocks. O2 is accelerated to speed v, travels for time t at v, is decelerated to rest wrt to O1, accelerated to v towards O1, again travels for a time and finally is decelerated to rest next to O1. They compare clocks. O2's clock has slowed down wrt O1. Yet O2 has observed O1 traveling at v. So why doesn't O1's clock slow down wrt to O2?

  The answer is the acceleration. To accelerate O2, a force is applied to it. The combination of force and distance adds energy to O2 that is not added to O1. That energy is added to O2 in terms of kinetic energy or momentum change. No matter how small is the energy that is added, it is split between mass and velocity and causes a time dilation. They are the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections. That is something that O2 experiences and O1 does not experience.

  The fundamental difference that O2's acceleration makes is that its mass increases as well as its velocity. Its time wrt O1  decreases. So while O2 may see O1 accelerating away, O1 is not the one experiencing the acceleration. Therefore O1 is not the observer whose mass is increasing and whose time is dilating. That is the physical reason why there is no "twin paradox". 

  Time dilation due to acceleration and deceleration (calculable from gravity equivalence) appears to be cumulative. Acceleration effects may make a difference if O2 is rapidly accelerated to v and then immediately rapidly decelerated to rest wrt O1, followed by a rapid acceleration to v and an immediate deceleration to rest next to O1. O2 will show SRT time dilation effect equal to the integrated effect of its relativistic velocity wrt O1. Those interested could calculate the acceleration effect from gravity equivalence and see how they compare.

  Apart from that the time delay O2 experiences is because of the velocity multiplied by time effect. When the time traveled is much longer than the acceleration time, the time delay experienced by O2 will, for all practical purposes, be due to the SRT correction. 

  The above has described the physics of the so called "twin paradox". There is no paradox. O2's time slows relative to O1 because O2 is the one that has been accelerated. Einstein was correct on both situations, the relativistic time correction and that they are only experienced by the accelerated observer. 

  Of course you are free to disagree with the above. However if you feel compelled to point out that it is wrong, it is best done by forwarding the physics that makes it wrong and then present the mathematics required to show the magnitude of the physical effect. Then show how it agrees with experimental observation. In doing that remember that experimentalist using accurate atomic clocks have many times verified the SRT time corrections. 

  There are two ways by which the SRT corrections can be applied. One is that there is an absolute zero reference somewhere in space and all corrections are applied from it. The other is that the SRT corrections are a property of any particle moving wrt another. I have previously published some calculations that suggest that the rotating or toroidal photon model for the structure of matter is responsible for the SRT corrections of matter. With all sub atomic particles, proton, neutron electron and neutrino having a rotating or toroidal photon structure, the SRT corrections are automatically inbuilt into every particle. As such I am happy that Einstein's SRT corrections will always apply. 

  Remember that all linear motions are relative to the observer. However accelerations and circular motions are absolute. O1 and O2 may start out at 0.5 c wrt O3. O2 may be decelerated to rest wrt O3, remain at rest wrt O3 and then accelerated back to 0.5c to return to rest next to O1. O1 will still see O2's clock as having lost time. O3 will see an entirely different situation. But remember O3 can only see what is happening to O1 and O2 by using photons. O3's time dilation observations of O1 and O2 must include the SRT corrections as well as Doppler effect and distance changes. Complex but calculable to those interested.

  Chip, regarding your analogy of A and B. At one stage in their life they were at the same place at the same time, even if it was only at birth. To find out which will be the younger you need to establish their background. If A remained at rest and B was accelerated away from A, B will be the younger when they both meet up again. If they both travelled away with equal accelerations, velocities and time they will both appear the same age. Both would be younger than a person born at the same place at the same time and remained at that place when they all met up again. 

  I am quite happy to accept that all linear motion is relative. It agrees with SRT and experiment. I am also satisfied that the rotating or toroidal photon model for an electron (and other particles) gives a physical description that matches both SRT and observation. 

  Cheers,

  Vivian Robinson

  On 15 June 2017 at 12:43:26 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com) wrote:

    Hi John

    Yes.  When I used the large circle example, I was afraid that someone would divert the conversation from Special Relativity.  I suppose I deserve that.

    Back to Special Relativity.

    One Twin (Twin B) is moving at a constant highly relativistic velocity toward Twin A. Twin B thinks Twin A is moving, Twin A thinks Twin B is moving. When twin B arrives at Twin A's location, Twin A expects Twin B to be younger, Twin B expects Twin A to be younger.  Mutually exclusive conditions (if all motion is relative). So all motion is not relative. Simple, even for post grads, like you and me.

    I welcome constructive, logical, suggestions, but please refrain from condescension, it does not help the cause.

    Chip

    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
    Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:19 AM
    To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
    Cc: Darren Eggenschwiler <darren at makemeafilm.com>; Innes Morrison <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>; Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
    Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

    Hi Chip,

    What happens for a circulating (near) lightspeed object is, not that local time or length changes, but the ring appears to get smaller for the participant - shrinking to zero length ring at lightspeed. Clocks onboard act normally. They will feel, however, feel an acceleration unless in free-fall, which can occur for a curved space -time or round the edge of the universe, for example. You really need to expand your thinking to General relativity (which is, of course, itself not the most general of all the possible proper descriptions of space and time, as it has only a simple scalar curvature) to get a proper grip on this.

    Someone mentioned a muon storage ring. the stored Muons decay normally according to themselves, but see a much smaller ring. They also feel a permanent transverse acceleration. The is also (synchrotron)radiation, but this is from the system ring+muons, rather than from the muons themselves.

    Most of the rest of the discussion on this has been at a level usually treated at undergraduate level. Grahame is right: you will not find a mathematical contradiction in special relativity. All this stuff has been done before.

    Hope this helps,

    Cheers, John.

    Regards, John W.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:12 PM
    To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
    Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

    Hi Grahame

    The reason for the huge circle in my thought experiment, is so that the velocity can be very close to c, causing relativistic time dilation, and that velocity dependent time dilation would dominate the experiment, while acceleration induced time variation would be far less significant.

    And I agree with you that space possesses a reference rest frame where time is not retarded in any of these or similar circumstances.

    But the important thing, I believe, is that all motion cannot be relative, and there cannot be full reciprocity regarding the effects of motion.  For if all motion is relative, then there is just no solution which satisfies the equations and does not present a paradox. If all motion is relative, then twin A will be younger than twin B, and twin B will be younger than twin A. But of course these are mutually exclusive answers, so all motion is not relative.

    So as it stands, if I am reading the comments correctly, you, me, Chandra, and Albrecht, agree that there is a more Lorentzian form of relativity, (which I feel is caused by matter being made of confined light-speed energy) which is the proper physical form of relativity in or universe.

    Thank you for your thoughts and comments!!!

    Chip

    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
    Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:09 PM
    To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
    Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

    Hi chip,

    I'm 100% with you on this!

    I really don't understand the notion that 'the universe is an observer effect' - it makes no sense to me whatsoever.  By the same token, the notion that 'collapse of the wavefunction' is precipitated by observation/measurement is to me quite fanciful - for me there is a much more straightforward explanation for the phenomenon referred to as 'wavefunction collapse' (which I don't believe to be a collapse of any kind!)

    I'm sorry for not responding to your previous post sooner; I was planning to send a comment, but have been fully occupied with other pressing matters of late.  My observation relates to your thought experiment in which each 'twin' sees the other as travelling in a large circle at high speed.  For me there is no paradox at all in this from the SR perspective (though like you, I am of the firm opinion that there exists one unique objectively static rest-frame [subject to Hubble expansion, of course], all other 'rest frames' are in motion in absoolute terms).

    If one twin is seen by the other as moving in a circle - however large - but regards themself as being at rest, then they will instead experience a force which the other twin will regard as acceleration towards the centre of the circle but that they themself will regard as influence of a gravitational field (if you doubt this, just posit an accelerometer on their ship with a readout that can be seen by, or communicated to, their twin).  That influence will be directly comparable with the centripetal force of constant-speed circular motion and will be regarded by that twin as causing identical time dilation for them c.f. one outside the influence of that field.  They will therefore expect their OWN clock to be slowed by an exactly corresponding amount from the perspective of one not subject to that 'gravitational field' - so they will fully expect their clock and that of their twin to be retarded by a precisely-equal degree, and so that both clocks would show identical times on comparison when again passing each other.

    [As a point of detail, making it a very BIG circle in no way reduces the validity of this analysis, it simply requires more accurate instrumentation - as is always the case with regard to details of SR & GR.]

    As I said in my previous comment, it very much appears to me that SR is 100% self-consistent mathematically.  This does not make it correct as a representation of physical reality - but trying to discredit SR by attempting to find a flaw in the math is to me a non-starter!  SR will ONLY be shown to be an incorrect assumption (in respect specifically of equivalence of all inertial reference frames) by consideration of the energetic formation of particles (which can also be approached indirectly by way of the Energy-Momentum Relation).

    [Another point of detail: I have included a fairly exhaustive analysis of Hasselkamp et al's experiment in my book: this shows that even so-called '2nd order Doppler effect' cannot be used to detect motion of the earth wrt the objective universal rest state, no matter how accurate readings or instrumentation.  SR is a VERY tightly-meshed cage!]

    Best regards,

    Grahame

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: Chip Akins 

      To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' 

      Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:34 PM

      Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

      Hi Chandra

      I don't know if the others are not receiving my posts or if they are just being ignored.

      The current exchange is quite disheartening however.

      To postulate that an observer creates the universe he experiences is absurd in so many ways, and counter to the evidence in so many ways, that I cannot believe we have spent so much time in such a discussion.

      All the evidence suggests the universe existed before observers, and continues to exist as each of us dies. The universe does what it does whether we observe it or not.  We can only make very slight, insignificant changes to the overall state of the universe. When we cause an interaction to occur by observation, it has an effect, but that does not mean that the universe is observer-centric. It just means that the universe does what it does.  When interactions occur a set of rules exist which govern those interactions.

      In a universe which is in effect created in the mind of the observer, I am the only observer that I know to exist.  The rest of the mentally imagined observers I interact with are figments of my mind. So it does no good to communicate with those figments and try to convince those imagined others of anything.

      Experience indicates that this is not the type of universe we live in.  Other sentient minds are present, all of us finding that Washington DC is located in the same spot and has the same buildings. We live in a single universe which has many sentient minds all seeing principally the same thing. We know this because we communicate with others, and compare notes.

      Once we understand the physics well enough we can see that wave-function collapse is NOT required to explain an interaction. So the reason for some quantum physicists overreaching and concluding that the observer has a significant bearing on physics then is a mute argument.

      We, as a species, seem to tend to look for the most "mentally stimulating" explanations, rather than sticking to the scientific approach, and looking for the most theoretically economical and practical answers.

      The universe has many lessons for us embedded within.  One of the most striking lessons is the elegant simplicity of how everything works.  If we keep this elegant simplicity in mind as we look for the rest of the answers, we are far more likely to find the right answers.

      Warmest Regards

      Charles (Chip) Akins

    _______________________________________________ 
    If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com 
    <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"> 
    Click here to unsubscribe 
    </a> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
  <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
  Click here to unsubscribe
  </a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170823/b90c7cd4/attachment.htm>