[General] STR twin Paradox

Tue Aug 22 14:33:22 PDT 2017

Hi Chip,

Fair warning: I'm significantly out of my depth in this crowd, and that may
become clear. However, I utterly adore reading this ongoing discussion and
for the first time have a tiny morsel to contribute:

A vague friend of mine recently introduced me to the principle of
explosion, and consequently paraconsistent logic (PL), and your example
sounds very much like an example of it. When I first heard it, I was
immediately reminded of quantum mechanics and Schrödinger's cat:

Clock A ran slower than Clock B = true
Clock B ran slower than Clock A = true
Therefore
I am a time traveling space octopus = true

ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet

Perhaps someone who is familiar with the mathematics of PL could make a
useful link between SRT and and whatever the useful part of PL is?

Otherwise I'd suggest: each of the premises above is true for each
observer, perhaps we are each in our own universes as defined by what is
relative to us.

Thank you for including me in this wonderful thread.

- Darren

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 at 20:40, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <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
> <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 <chipakins at gmail.com>
>
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>
> *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>
>
> --

Darren Eggenschwiler
Tech, Brand Calibre
07817 205 201

www.brandcalibre.com
0141 212 6356
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170822/022e2a67/attachment.htm>