[General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Wed Jul 5 21:23:44 PDT 2017
John and Chip:
your discussions on the twin paradox resemble the one I am having with
Albrecht in the sense of who is right. In this it is quite important to
identify the SRT
Einstein actually published from how it has morphed. Specifically the
understanding that there is no paradox because both twins would
understand the theory sufficiently to calculate results based upon their
knowledge of physics , which when "correctly" applied does not lead to a
paradox, is in my opinion suspect.
So I have gone to the Source:
Einstein, A. (1905) “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, /The
Principle of Relativity; a collection of original memoirs on the special
and general theory of relativity/, Edited by A Sommerfeld, Translated by
W. Perrett and G. Jeffery, Dover Publications, p35-65 ISBN486-60081-5
on page 49 he writes:" If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in
a closed curve with constant velocity unitil it returnes to A, the
journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the traveled clock on its arrival ast A will be 1/2 t v2/c2 slow. Hence
we conclude that a balanced clock at the equator must go more slowly, by
a very small amount than an otherwise similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions.'
If I read this statement it clearly tells me that Einstein meant the
moving clock slows down simply because of its relative motion. No
qualification is made about the acceleration or its relation to gravity.
The reference to the north pole and equator was simply to provide an
example of relative motion. I believe SRT and the clock slow down as
Einstein presented it was intended to apply to any motion along a closed
curve. Whether such a curve is produced by a gravitational orbit, a
clock at the end of a string, or a spaceship. Therefore I conclude that
a clock paradox was built into SRT as Einstein proposed it, and I
believe Einstein recognized this limitation and began working on GRT
because there are no closed curved trajectories without gravitation
and/or acceleration at play.
Until we nail down which SRT we are talking about both paradox and no
paradox proponents can be right.
best wishes
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/15/2017 6:38 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> Dear Grahame,
>
> I'm pleased you enjoy the regular posts. I'm sorry you hear the "I am
> right" afterwards because my contributions here have been only on the
> interpretation of "physics as it stands". I did not say to Chip that
> he was "wrong", only that he was mistaken. What I would rather be (and
> I am sure Chip would too!), in fact is wrong. Precisely because then
> there is something to learn. I hope (and strongly believe, knowing
> him) that Chip is not offended. If he were I would apologise profusely!
>
> Neary all the interactions with this group discussion so far have been
> merely didactic. Wrong, indeed, on my part on many occasions, though
> not yet usefully wrong. Mine have been been silly mistakes, typos and,
> as Al put it once "shooting from the hip", mistakes so far. This is
> why several people who could have made proper contributions to this
> discussion, and have done so earlier, have simply given up on it as a
> waste of time and effort. this is not to say that face to face
> discussions with group memebers have not been useful.
>
> Remember I said "It is not really that one of us is "right" and the
> others are "wrong" or that we are all "wrong". What we are doing is,
> as Viv says, setting up a conceptual framework and then considering it
> faithfully (as faithfully as we can anyway) within those boundaries.
> What I am saying is that SR is in NO WAY a starting point, but is a
> simple derivative of deeper consideration. "
>
> What I was asserting to Chip, within these limitations is that there
> is no logical contradiction within SR on the grounds he had put
> forwards, precisely because of the symmetry between the twins. I was
> further asserting that working within ANY mathematical framework
> limits you to that framework - and is hence a waste of time if one
> attempts to apply it to results outside that framework (such as the
> gravitational slowing of clocks in general relativity, for example).
> Any "contradiction" at this point is no such thing as the theory does
> not purport to say anything about that scenario, real or not. What I
> was NOT saying is that I thought SR, with all the modern connotations,
> was in some sense "true". It is far far too simple to be the whole
> story. Please read this properly!
>
> To go further, I also agree that, for any object in absolute motion
> w.r.t. to the universe as a whole there will be an additional
> (relativistic) mass, and hence gravitational field, that , just as is
> the case for any mass in any gravitational field, slows down the
> clocks. Clocks on earth run slower than clocks in space. Look at the
> current situation: you have now asserted that I was "wrong" on these
> grounds, when, in fact, there was no movement onto that ground
> whatsoever. There is absolutely no point in moving onto an argument in
> GR when one has problems at the level of SR. That will make one
> consider oneself kind of ok at the SR level, but only with problems at
> the GR level, which has not been the case here.
>
> This, and indeed GR considerations, does not alter the fact that any
> local clock, in a spaceship or on earth, if defined of light and by
> light, will always appear to the local observer to run exactly
> normally if in an inertial frame. This is because the local observer
> is defined by light and of light. Hence, no contradiction with SR
> either way. Also, the scenario I described at length last time, of the
> two spaceships blasting of in opposite directions with almost infinite
> initial acceleration (hance the unphysicality names), was purely on
> the grounds of SR. Since this already gives a near zero time for
> apparent travel to Vega any further slowing of clocks, while it would
> be present, is of no consequence further to the argument in the "twin
> paradox". Also, in my view, the apparent "clock slowing" in GR itself
> has a deeper reason anyway. Merely entering it as a GR effect of the
> local space is then also to take a good dose of the general Kool aid.
>
> What do you think I meant by "Maths can help you see, but maths can
> make you blind"? Remember I am not (yet, if ever) one of the
> "establishment". I wish I was, then I could go fishing.
>
> Regards, John W.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:17 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox
>
> John
> Perversely, I always enjoy your regular assertions to others of: "You
> are mistaken", or "You are wrong" - which of course carries the
> unspoken follow-on of "and I am right".
> I really feel that, to redress the balance somewhat, I need to say
> "No, John, YOU are mistaken (IMO)".
> This is not to say that I agree with Chip's interpretation of the
> 'circling twins' scenario: for me, even though I am 100% persuaded
> that there IS a unique objective universal rest-state - a unique
> objectively static (in universal terms) reference frame - SRT very
> adequately explains that scenario without any paradox, apparent or
> otherwise. Each twin, on believing themself to be at rest, will also
> consider themself to be subject to a gravitational field that exactly
> parallels the perceived state of motion of their other twin; they will
> therefore expect their 'gravitationally-affected' clock to be slowed
> to a corresponding degree that they see as their twin's slowed
> time-sense. No paradox in the maths of SRT.
> No, my "You are mistaken" relates to your assertion that time is not
> running slower in either ship. From the perspective of
> photonically-generated material particles, taken to its logical
> conclusion - a unique objective universal rest-state - there is a very
> cogent basis for clocks NOT in that universal rest-frame to be
> registering the passage of time more slowly than one in that
> rest-frame. This leads unequivocally to objectively different rates
> of the passage of time in different inertial frames.
> This is a totally different issue from whether or not SRT is
> internally self-consistent: a model can be perfectly self-consistent
> without being a true representation of any physical reality; indeed, a
> model can be 100% self-consistent AND bear a remarkable similarity to
> general perception of physical reality without being an objectively
> true representation of same. As the semanticist Alford Korzybski
> famously observed: "The map is not the territory; however, to the
> degree that the map reflects observed reality, to that degree it may
> prove useful". This is unquestionably true of SRT.
> Another quote that seems higly relevant, this time from Mark Twain:
> "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to
> pause and reflect". Of course this is in no way a denigration per se
> of those adopting the majority view- but it IS very definitely saying
> "Just because something is believed by a majority - even a very
> significant majority - doesn't mean that it's correct". (Another
> quote I saw some time back , but cannot now re-trace the source, from
> a notable and highly respected physicist: "We're all drinking the same
> Kool-ade" - I leave you to figure how that's relevant.)
> Best regards,
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* John Williamson <mailto:John.Williamson at glasgow.ac.uk>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Darren Eggenschwiler <mailto:darren at makemeafilm.com> ;
> Ariane Mandray <mailto:ariane.mandray at wanadoo.fr> ; Mark,Martin
> van der <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com> ; Innes Morrison
> <mailto:innes.morrison at cocoon.life>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> No Chip you are mistaken.
>
> Time is not running "slower" in either ship. It is only the
> perception of time that differs. It is a common misconception in
> relativity that "clocks slow down". The fact that the
> misconception is widely believed and widely quoted does not make
> it more true. Both folk in both spaceships should know this and
> should be able to calculate exactly what the other observes.
> Pretty simple really as it is wholly symmetric.
>
> In(general covariant) relativity, the point is that each inertial
> observer considers their frame "stationary". In fact every
> observer can be aware of their motion w.r.t. the cosmic microwave
> background, so there is an absolute frame -obviously. This is not,
> however, the purview of special relativity which deals with, in
> its simplest form, only space and time and velocity, I say "in its
> simplest form" because many folk move the line as to what "special
> relativity" is. The fact there is clearly a given frame, the CMB
> does not contradict general covariance. In a slightly more
> extended relativity, some would go for the Lorentz group (which
> contains rotations and boosts). It matters little, if you put
> yourself inside any mathematical box (including the concept of
> general covariance!) you can only say things about the situation
> in the box, and can not even describe the boundaries of the box
> (Wittgenstein, Godel). To try then to talk about things outside
> the box is simply meaningless, and a complete and utter waste of
> time.
>
>
> Looking at this conversation going past I have agreed with most of
> what some folk have said (Viv, Grahame and Al, for example), but I
> know that we all differ at some level on this (ref my earlier
> conversation with Al, for example). It is not really that one of
> us is "right" and the others are "wrong" or that we are all
> "wrong". What we are doing is, as Viv says, setting up a
> conceptual framework and then considering it faithfully (as
> faithfully as we can anyway) within those boundaries. What I am
> saying is that SR is in NO WAY a starting point, but is a simple
> derivative of deeper consideration. These deeper considerations
> have a multitude of possibilities, only one of which is the
> concept of "general covariance", which is what we are talking
> about. For example, my derivation of SR has nothing at all to do
> with general covariance. It looks at the properties of
> self-confined mass-light. It is another starting point, one of
> very many, which also gives SR as a consequence. Always a
> consequence. Never a starting point. SR is not a scientific “holy
> cow”, it is more a scientific pint of pasteurized, homogenized
> milk from an international set of cows, mostly non-holy. I would
> appeal to everyone to put this conversation to bed as it is
> neither useful nor decorative and, go and make a nice hot cup of
> tea (or a glass of warm milk).
>
> Proving SR true within its realm of validity (likely) or even
> false in some experiment is anyway of very little consequence for
> the maths of SR itself, which will prove to be a limiting case
> anyway. If one gets a "false" where there is gravity and/or
> acceleration, for example has reference only to the super-theory,
> as SR does not make any claims to include acceleration or
> gravitation. When I say that to understand it you need to step
> outside SR and consider (at least) acceleration, I am talking
> about understanding the (maths) box. Remember that this is a box
> of ones own creation. Maths is just marks on paper one makes up.
> It is the physics and the understanding that counts. Maths can
> help you see, but maths can make you blind.
>
> Coming back to the physics, personally, I do not think
> acceleration alone cuts this although this is vital to getting the
> so-called "paradox". I think one needs to look at energy
> conservation and the very mechanism of the generation of the
> universe (itself a zero-energy system) and the way in which the
> elementary processes cause this to come into being to make any
> real progress.
>
> In short I think the whole conversation has been a complete waste
> of time in making any actual progress, as all the examples brought
> up have been long-considered, but has perhaps been useful in
> getting people to think further.
>
>
> Regards to all, John W.
>
>
> I will go blue below
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:52 PM
> *To:* 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> Hi John
>
> You are absolutely right regarding rotations, and the need for a
> more complete theory as in General relativity to describe them.
>
> However, the point of my thought experiment was to take a look at
> a specific aspect of Special Relativity.
>
> The concept in Special Relativity that all motion is relative is
> logically flawed.
>
> Let me pose a modified thought experiment to illustrate.
>
> Our experiment begins with all the following conditions in place…
>
> Spaceship A thinks it is stationary (not moving) in space,
> Spaceship A views Spaceship B approaching at a highly relativistic
> speed. Spaceship B thinks it is stationary and thinks that
> Spaceship A is approaching at the same highly relativistic speed.
> When the Spaceships are 1 light year apart they both transmit
> their reference time (and date). When Spaceship B passes very
> close to Spaceship A they again both transmit their time and date.
>
> During the experiment there is no acceleration applied to either
> spaceship.
>
> Receivers are set up to record the time and date information (and
> are tuned to accommodate any blue shift from either spaceship).
>
> The receivers are adjacent to Spaceship A just for an example.
>
> If in fact Spaceship B is the moving ship, the signal transmitted
> 1 light year before the ships pass each other, will arrive at the
> receiver Adjacent to A moments before Spaceship B passes Spaceship A.
>
>
> Good so far
>
> In this situation Spaceship A expects Spaceship B time to be
> running slower. And Spaceship B expects Spaceship A time to be
> running slower.
>
>
>
> This is where you go into the mist. No. Both expect each others
> time to be running normally.
>
>
> If all motion is relative this is what they MUST expect.
>
>
> No - precisely the opposite. If all is relative they must expect
> the situation to be EXACTLY SYMMETRIC, as it is.
>
>
>
> But those two outcomes are mutually exclusive, so logically, all
> motion is NOT relative.
>
>
> No the two outcomes are exactly the same, as one must expect.
>
> If we feel all motion is relative then there is a logical error in
> our theoretical basis.
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170705/c0bfff80/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list