[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Thu Jul 6 04:36:32 PDT 2017

Hi Wolf

First, I want to say that I was not offended by any of John's comments. It
seems to me that John and I are both looking, for not just answers, but the
correct answers.

Next, my thoughts are that a moving clock does slow, but not due to
"relative" motion but rather due to absolute motion in the fixed frame of
space.  I also feel that there is a quantifiable "frame dragging" of space
surrounding massive objects. Which has a tendency to make motion seem more
relative.

And lastly, I do not feel that the "observer" has any more to do with
physics than interaction caused by observation. Interactions have the same
kinds of results, whether caused by an observer, or some other circumstance.

Chip

From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Baer
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 11:24 PM
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Subject: Re: [General] JW on STR twin Paradox

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 <mailto: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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Dr Grahame Blackwell [grahame at starweave.com
<mailto: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.natureoflightandparticl
es.org
<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightand
particles.org> ] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com
<mailto: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
<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com> 
<a href=
<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureofligh
tandparticles.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/20170706/b3b88271/attachment.htm>