[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Mon Aug 28 21:09:16 PDT 2017 

Graham:

I do not see any misunderstanding except perhaps a semantic one - there 
is no paradox whether the clock rate is deduced from a knowledge of GRT 
or from well known experiments is not a distinction I think worth 
arguing about. The point is that given a broader knoweledge of physics 
that what Einstein explained in hie seminal 1905 paper there is no 
paradox. I agree.

Albrecht:

I just cannot grasp how you can say gravity has nothing to do with it. 
If two twins pass each other with a relative velocity would not the 
straight forward application of the Lorenz transformations result that 
both twins conclude the other twin is going more slowly than ones own.   
This is what Einstein and every elementary text on SRT calculates t' = t 
(1-c^2 /v^2 )^-1/2

I'm not taking about anyting more, no additional understanding about 
clock rates from experiments or GRT,  just the time dilation relationship

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 8/27/2017 11:48 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>
> 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 atphys 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>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
> 	Virenfrei. www.avast.com 
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20170828/01fde239/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/20170828/01fde239/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/20170828/01fde239/attachment-0001.gif>

More information about the General mailing list