[General] JW on STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Fri Jul 7 13:06:43 PDT 2017
Chip,
I also think that it is the easiest and most physical way to understand
relativity in general and dilation in particular, if one assumes that
there is an absolute frame of rest, and that the motion with respect to
this frame causes (among other phenomena) dilation. But it is a specific
property of relativity that every observer in any inertial frame can
assume that his frame is the frame at rest. And in his observation the
physical world behaves indeed as if his frame would be the absolute
frame at rest.
This sounds like a paradox at the first glance. But with a proper use of
the Lorentz transformation it can be explained why it is this way. It is
a bit of work to make these calculations, but it is possible and one may
say that this work is a necessity to understand special relativity.
Albrecht
Am 06.07.2017 um 13:36 schrieb Chip Akins:
>
> 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-mailwolf 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 atWolf 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>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170707/a2a137f3/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list