[General] JW on STR twin Paradox

Thu Jul 6 05:07:24 PDT 2017

Hi Wolf,

For what it is worth, I think neither of you are looking at the whole story, and that that story does not end with whatever Einstein wrote at any given point in time. Nevertheless, the operative phrase in his writings below is that one clock "is moved in a closed curve". A clock cannot be moved from rest around a closed curve without accelerating it. Accelerating a clock winds it up, increasing its frequency and slowing the apparent ticking simultaneously. You need to get this to really get it (it is de Broglies "harmony of phases"). Einstein did later get this, but far later than the 1905 quote below, though it is not here material.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Wolfgang Baer [wolf at nascentinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 5:23 AM
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.

Not the case.

No qualification is made about the acceleration or its relation to gravity.

Oh yes it is: one clock "is moved" and not the other. Move the other clock and it would show the change, symmetrically.

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.

Now this is partially correct: there was indeed no gravity in Einsteins thinking in 1905 and one does need to understand what happens with (elementary) clocks under acceleration. Once again, there is no paradox: merely a different measure of time and space for two mutually moving observers. One girls space is (partially) another boys time .,

Clocks in a gravitational well slow down because they "see" a different universe, as do clocks moving at speed through the fixed frame of the universe, as defined by the CMB and the relative redshift of local galaxies. One needs ones analysis to include and expand on these things, as people in the group such as Viv (and Martin, though he has now left)  have already done and as Grahame has been doing (as far as I understand it and I have not yet seen a copy of his detailed work on this).

Until we nail down which SRT we are talking about both paradox and no paradox proponents can be right.

Neither are "right" because both arguments are too limited.

The main point is that SRT is already "nailed down". It is just a little bit of the understanding of how stuff works: how first order space and time "work" if the underlying stuff is light. The discussion you and A have been having has already been done to death many times. My advice is to just stop as you are simply wasting your time. Within the mathematical box of SRT there is simple nothing to prove one way or the other as it is what it is: incomplete. You cannot use any logical system to prove, or disprove, anything outside of the logical system, which is what the discussion has been about. Forget it. It is pointless. Some of you seem to think physics is somehow based on SR. It just isn't! The bases are already (much) deeper, whether you start with general covariance or with the physical shrinking of rulers, or with deeper position than either. The interesting problems have to do with what it is based on, not the mathematical system itself. With the physics and not with the maths.

I think your thinking in terms of perspective of the observer is good. If you want to go to a proper, relativistic Lagrangian though, be warned: this has been a mainstream thrust of a big part of the (Lagrangian) field theoretic community for many decades. Hundreds and hundreds of high-powered minds for over a century (including Dirac and Feynmann to name but two). None of them have got it to work. They call it "the desert".  It is a field already well ploughed. It is also a field I have no intention whatever of venturing into, as I think I know why that one will prove completely fruitless as well: the Lagrangian is (and will always be) always too simple if expressed in a division algebra. Such approaches miss the main underlying nature of space and time. If I were you, I would forget about trying that one too, at least until you have looked at what folk have tried before (Chris Isham (Imperial) would be a good place to start).

best wishes

wolf

Cheers, John.

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.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.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-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<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/20170706/add42a3f/attachment.htm>