[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Aug 27 11:48:32 PDT 2017
Hi Grahame,
without going into details of this discussion I only want to point to
the following fact:
Whereas you are of course right that the twin situation is not a paradox
but logically clean, what we all as I think have sufficiently discussed
here, the following is not correct in my view:
The twin situation has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with gravity.
Two arguments for this:
o The so called twin paradox is purely Special Relativity. Gravity on
the other hand, is General Relativity. This is the formal point.
o From practical numbers it is visible that gravity cannot be an
explanation. Take the usual example saying that one twin stays at home
and the other one travels - as seen from the twin at home - for twenty
years away and then twenty years back. From the view of the twin at
home, at the other ones return 40 years have gone. For the travelling
twin only one year has gone (This case is theoretically possible if the
proper speed is taken, about 0.9997c)). Then the travelling twin would
have saved 39 years of life time. Now look at the possible influence of
gravity: Assume it takes the travelling twin a year to change his speed
from almost c to almost - c , then, even if the speed of proper time
would decrease to zero, he would have saved only one year. But, in this
example, he has saved 39 years. How could this work? No one in physics
assumes that proper time can run inversely. So this is no possible
explanation.
How is it explained? I do not want to repeat again and again the correct
(but a bit lengthy) explanation, but I attempt to give a short version:
In Einstein's relativity the run of time in different frames can
logically not be continuously compared, it can only be compared at
interaction points where two clocks (or whatever) are at the same
position. And the determination of the situation at such common position
has to be done by the Lorentz transformation. And this determination
works, as many times said here, without logical conflicts.
If you solve this problem using the Lorentzian SRT, then the result is
the same but the argument is different, more physics-related, and also
better for the imagination. If wanted, I can of course explain it.
Albrecht
Am 27.08.2017 um 01:13 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> I'm sorry Wolf, but it seems that you're still not getting it.
> This situation can be explained fully logically WITHOUT either twin
> making any assumptions about SR or GR - simply from their own
> observations and from well-proven experimental findings.
> If we label the twins A and B, then their situations are effectively
> symmetric* - so we'll consider the scenario from the viewpoint of twin A.
> A considers him/herself static, and all motion to be attributable to
> twin B. So - and this agrees with experimental observation of clocks
> at high speed (in planes and in GPS satellites) - twin A will observe
> twin B's clock running slow, if A's own clock is not upset by any
> effect. HOWEVER, since A is actually travelling in circular motion,
> (s)he will experience a centripetal force; assuming him/herself to be
> static, this will necessarily be attributed to gravitational effects -
> and it's well known from experiment (Pound-Rebka and successors) that
> gravitational fields cause time dilation - so A will expect their own
> clock to be running more slowly also due to that 'gravitational'
> effect (note that this is not any assumption of SR or GR, simply
> inference from proven experimental results) [and so also A's
> observation of B's clock, measured against A's own clock, will not fit
> the standard SR time-dilation model, for reasons that A will fully
> comprehend]. For A, the cumulative time-dilation for B's perceived
> relative speed and for A's own perceived 'gravitational' effect
> exactly balance - so A will fully expect both clocks to coincide when
> the twins meet again (as B will also).
> No paradox.
> * It needs to be said that further study of causation of 'relativistic
> time dilation' leads to the understanding that this is an objective
> effect due to travelling at speed relative to the unique
> objectively-static universal reference frame. So if the centre of the
> circle traced out by A and B is itself in motion relative to that
> reference frame then it cannot be assumed that A's and B's motions
> will be symmetric; in that case their clocks may well not be precisely
> synchronised on their meeting again. This is an observation relating
> to physical reality, which in no way contradicts the self-consistency
> of SR (or GR) as a mathematical system.
> Best regards,
> Grahame
> =======
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 26, 2017 3:09 AM
> *Subject:* [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>
> Dear John W, Grahame nd Albrecht:
>
> I cannot let this request for help go unanswered:
>
> I do not believe we have a any fundamental disagreement with the
> twin paradox. It never was anything more than a semantic problem.
> If two twins with identical and locally synchronized clocks are
> set on equal circular orbits in opposite directions and meet again
> and compare clocks, I believe it is an experimental fact that the
> clocks will run at the same rate (neglecting solar gravity if
> experiments are conducted near earth)
>
> <!--[if !vml]-->
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
>
> Fig 1
>
> <!--[if !mso]-->
>
> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->
>
> <!--[endif]-->
>
>
> The appearance of a twin paradox in my opinion is completely due
> to Einstein’s sloppy writing. In his 1905 paper, which I looked
> up, he explicitly stated that a clock making a round trip at
> velocity “v” will slow down compared with a stationary observer.
> The argument that both observers applying Einstein’s theory would
> NOT come to this paradoxical conclusion is based on an
> interpretation by a host of well meaning physicists of Einstein’s
> original paper that suggests that each observer, knowing
> relativity would use this knowledge analyze the situation as shown
> in figure 1 above and therefore not expect the other clock to slow
> down. As Kracklauer correctly pointed out that there is an
> original SRT that had the twin paradox people justly criticized
> Einstein for it and a slightly revised SRT that explains it away
> is usually not mentioned. I think we all understand this and I
> have no argument with Albrecht on this point.
>
> Now however I insist that the speed of light is NOT constant
> because it depends upon the situation the material (observer
> material) finds itself in a gravitational field. As long as the
> field in that material is fairly homogeneous the speed of light in
> that observers material is representative of the speed of EM
> interactions and is constant. And recognizing this dependency is
> critical to making progress in physics by eliminating the crazy
> adjustments to classical physics the wrog interpretation of bith
> SRT and GRT has hoisted upon us.
>
> Now Albrecht correctly states that synchrotron experiments show
> that the speed of light is constant and the mass is varying.
>
> <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->
>
>
> <!--[if !vml]-->
>
>
>
> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]-->
> <!--[endif]-->
>
> Fig 2
>
> <!--[if !mso]-->
>
> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->
>
> <!--[endif]-->
>
>
> Now we have the situation of a charged particle traveling around a
> circular orbit. Like the Bohr model of the Hydrogen atom, except
> much faster. Now my CAT theory assumes that charge and mass are
> held together by a Force that I have introduced for example in the
> Vigier 9 paper. This means the internal structure of the orbiting
> electron would be expanded and the extra energy is stored not in a
> mass increase but in the stretch of the spring metaphorically
> holding the two together.
>
> Interestingly enough both particles woul exhibit an internal
> rotation I believe is spin. I think I could duplicate Sommerfelds
> fine structure correction but have not had the time to do so and
> *would welcome help*.
>
>
> But I thing I have a new and better interpretation od both SRT and
> GRT - I've been trying to get this across to Albrecht and I
> believe we now have tangible analysis problem before us to resolve
> our disagreement
>
>
> So let me steer the conversation to this new challenge
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
> On 8/25/2017 7:48 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> Dear John W and Grahame,
>
>
> I think that I should explain a bit about this discussion between
> Wolf and myself. Why this discussion is as it is.
>
>
> I find the topic of Wolf about conciousness very interesting and
> very important. So I have continued with this discussion. But,
> unfortunately in my view, Wolf is basing his thoughts on a wrong
> understanding of relativity. The finds that this "incorrect"
> theory 'SRT' is an indication of our human failure to understand
> physics and so of our misleading consciousness. - But not SRT is
> incorrect (as some of you have already and repeatedly written) but
> Wolf's understanding is wrong. - I am trying to give Wolf a
> correct understanding as a precondition for a successful
> development of the issue of consciousness. I see that this may be
> boring for those who have understood relativity. But what else can
> we do to get ahead?
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Albrecht
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/14ebc17b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/14ebc17b/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170827/14ebc17b/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list