[General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sun Jun 4 05:10:50 PDT 2017
Hi Grahame,
the point of _acceleration_ is a very important one in my view, as 1.)
it is misunderstood by many and 2.) it points to an error in GRT which I
shall detail further down.
The case of SRT is easy. Time dilation and contraction (of fields,
space, .. whatever) only depends on the actual speed of a system.
Whether this speed is part of an acceleration process or a constant
speed has no influence. You will find this also in textbooks about SRT.
There is nowhere a formula given which relates dilation (or whatever) to
the actual acceleration.
_Reciprocity_ in SRT is given. It is formally and physically given if we
follow the SRT interpretation of Einstein. It is also formally given but
physically violated in the interpretation of Lorentz because for Lorentz
there is an absolute frame at rest. The apparent reciprocity in
calculations and experiments is caused here by the fact that at motion
in relation to the fixed system the physical quantities change but at
the same time the measurement tools change so that the effects exactly
compensate. Example is the speed of light which is in the Lorentzian
system in no way constant but is measured as constant because clocks
etc. change at motion in the way needed.
Regarding GRT, however, _acceleration_ is a very critical point. The
strong _equivalence principle_ is the essential basis for Einstein's
GRT. However, this principle is violated. Acceleration and gravity are
physically different and can be distinguished. Two examples for this:
1.) An electron radiates when accelerated, it does not radiate when at
rest in a gravitational field. 2.) Clock time is slowed down in a
gravitational field but it is not slowed down with respect to any
acceleration. If an object is accelerated and so in motion, time is
slowed down but only with respect of the actual speed, not with respect
to the acceleration. A clear experimental proof for this was the muon
storage ring at CERN. The life time of the muons was extended, but the
extension was in relation to the speed (close to c), but not in relation
to the enormous acceleration in the ring. If that would have an effect,
the life time should have been extended by another factor of at least 1000.
That is an interesting point because without the strong equivalence
principle the GRT of Einstein has no logical basis.
And anyway, I want to warn of the uncritical use of "principles". A
principle is in my view not a physical law but a preliminary detection
of a rule. Could we imagine that a particle "knows" that it has to
follow a principle? That would be like religion. -- So, if a principle
is detected, the next goal should always be to find the physical law(s)
behind the principle. In the case of SRT this is not done by Einstein
but by Lorentz.
Albrecht
Am 04.06.2017 um 00:08 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
> Hi Albrecht,
> I agree fully with at least your first four paragraphs. It looks as
> if you may not have read my email in full: in my 4th-from-last
> paragraph I make two points, (1) and (2), which effectively summarise
> all that you say (in your reply) in your first 4 paras.
> I'm not sure that I agree, though, with your observation on
> acceleration. Constant acceleration is of course just a steady
> transition through inertial frames, so that transition has an effect
> on relationships between an accelerating frame and a non-accelerating
> frame (or another constantly-accelerating frame) that fits with
> principles of SR; I suppose it depends on what you mean by "does not
> play any role". I believe that the Equivalence Principle, equating
> effects of acceleration to effects of an equivalent gravitational
> field, has pretty good experimental credentials.
> For me, though, the important thing is the claimed *reciprocity* of
> SR, which in turn leads to the claim of frame symmetry. The fact is,
> that reciprocity is also borne out by experiment, including in
> particle accelerator experiments. The critical point here, though, is
> that this reciprocity is reciprocity of *measurement*. That's why I
> refer to aspects of SR as 'observer effects'.
> Apart from in my own writings I haven't seen *any* explanation for
> that observed reciprocity that doesn't depend on objective inertial
> frame symmetry. Such an explanation is essential to non-symmetric
> explanations of anomolous aberration of starlight, for example, as
> well as various particle accelerator experiments. I have fully
> explored this issue and have derived reciprocal relationships for
> observers on the move who observe events in a static frame: I have
> shown that for fully subjective reasons such observers (and
> instruments) will yield results that appear to show the Lorentz
> Transformation acting reciprocally - thus 'proving' objective frame
> symmetry. Without such an explanation any claim that SR is *not* an
> objective reality cannot hold water.
> I agree also that principles that establish SR as an explainable
> phenomenon can be extended to GR, including every aspect of the
> Equivalence Principle. But this of course depends on a rational
> explanation for gravitation that shows how 'at-a-distance' interaction
> of massive bodies and 'curvature of spacetime' by such bodies comes
> about. This I have also done, simply by reference to phenomena
> already discussed and widely agreed.
> Grahame
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2017 8:01 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox
>
> Hi Grahame,
>
> fully agreement that Einstein's relativity is a working theory but
> does not have any causal explanation. This has to do with the
> general attitude of Einstein with respect to science when he
> developed relativity. But before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz had
> already started to work on these problems, and his approach does
> in fact have causal physical explanations.
>
> Shortly after the Michelson-Morley experiment Oliver Heaviside
> presented a calculation (1888), deduced from Maxwell's theory of
> electromagnetism, that an electrical field necessarily contracts
> at motion. Fitzgerald concluded that if fields contract also
> objects will contract at motion. If this happens also the
> apparatus of the MM experiment would contract at motion. And if it
> contracts, so the conclusion of Lorentz, the null-result of the
> experiment is fully explained even if an ether should exist.
>
> Next step is dilation. It was (to my knowledge) already suspected
> by Lorentz and it was later found by Schrödinger (1930) that
> inside elementary particles there is a permanent motion with c,
> the speed of light. If this is assumed it follows geometrically
> that any elementary particle acts like a light clock and its
> internal motion and so its frequency is reduced in the way
> described by the Lorentz transformation. The reduction of the
> internal frequency propagates to all cases of motion in physics.
>
> This is special relativity. But the considerations of Lorentz can
> be also extended to general relativity, and the result is a
> mathematical model which fully conforms to the one of Einstein but
> is also based on physical explanations.
>
> Another point in this discussion: Acceleration *does not play any
> role *in relativity, neither in SRT nor in GRT. The reference to
> acceleration in case of e.g. the twin paradox comes from the
> (indirect) fact that in case of an acceleration of one party / one
> twin this one will leave his inertial frame. So the Lorentz
> transformation does not apply any longer. But, not to confuse it
> here, an acceleration does not give any quantitative contribution
> to the processes treated by SRT and GRT.
>
> Another comment to the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity:
> Following Lorentz makes relativity much better understandable than
> the one of Einstein, and it avoids all paradoxes which I know.
> This applies particularly to GRT which becomes so simple that it
> can be treated at school, whereas the Einsteinian is too
> complicated even for most students of physics.
>
> Albrecht
>
>
> Am 03.06.2017 um 19:43 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>> Hi Wolf, Albrecht, John W et al.,
>> I want to express complete agreement with John W on the role of
>> accel'n/grav'n in resolving any apparent paradox in the twins saga.
>> I must first, though, draw attention to what appears to be an
>> elementary error in Wolf's analysis (unless I've totally
>> misunderstood you, Wolf - I can't see how this would be the case).
>> Wolf, you propose (quite reasonably) that each twin is initially
>> moving away from the other at speed 'v'. You then propose a
>> variation in each twin's clock as perceived by the other,
>> delta-t'. However your expression for that delta-t' shows the
>> other twin's clock progressing FASTER than that of the
>> observer-twin (13 months instead of 12 months) - whereas of
>> course the whole point of SRT is that the moving clock progresses
>> SLOWER than that of the static observer. This is due to a common
>> fallacy, of applying the time-dilation factor, which gives the
>> extended duration of each second, say, in the moving frame as
>> observed from the static frame (hence the phrase
>> 'time-dilation'), to the apparent time-passed in that moving
>> frame. This makes the ratio of observed/observer clock-time the
>> inverse of what it should be according to SRT. The perceived
>> elapsed time in the moving frame should be observer time
>> multiplied by the INVERSE of the Lorentz Factor.
>> This doesn't totally destroy your argument (though it does render
>> it rather less plausible), since you are implying that on
>> re-meeting the apparent accumulated difference will not be shown
>> on either clock - as of course it couldn't be. However, as John W
>> points out, any apparent difference will be precisely wiped out
>> by acceleration considerations: SRT is 100% internally
>> self-consistent, it cannot be faulted on ANY application of its
>> assertions with respect to time.
>> However, the fact that it's internally self-consistent doesn't
>> make it RIGHT. It's not difficult to envisage a set of
>> mathematical rules - for instance, relating to trajectories
>> - that give totally self-consistent results but don't accord with
>> practical observations.
>> Here's where it gets interesting. Because of course results of
>> calculations in SRT DO fit with practical observations, and have
>> done so for over a century. The question then arises as to why
>> this should be so - since, unlike pretty well every other branch
>> of physics, no causal explanation has been found (or even
>> sought?) for effects in spacetime as given by SRT. It's been
>> tacitly accepted by the mainstream physics community as "That's
>> just how it is". This is a statement of belief, not of science -
>> the prime directive of science is to ask "Why?"
>> When I started on my own scientific investigations 20 years ago I
>> took SRT totally at face value, totally uncritically. I didn't
>> actually start by asking "Why?" in relation to SRT. As I
>> progressed with my research, essentially into aspects on
>> electromagnetic waves anf the fundamental nature of time, it
>> gradually became apparent that there IS a "Why!". That 'why'
>> rests on the fact that all material objects are formed from
>> electromagnetic energy (hence E = Mc-squared); in a moving object
>> that energy is travelling linearly as well as cyclically within
>> the object - and this combined motion beautifully explains EVERY
>> aspect of SRT.
>> This explanation boils down to two considerations:
>> (1) Material objects are affected by their formative energy-flows
>> moving linearly as well as cyclically, giving rise to
>> time-dilation precisely in accordance with the formula given by
>> SRT and Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction as also 'imported' into SRT;
>> (2) Material objects which happen to be (a) observers or (b)
>> measuring instruments are likewise affected in both these
>> respects when in motion, giving all other observed consequences
>> detailed by SRT - as observer effects.
>> [As a point of detail, it IS possible to show the fallacy in SRT
>> only if you consider matters from the level of particle
>> formation, rather than complete particles.]
>> In other words, ALL observed phenomena that appear to confirm SRT
>> (and also, in fact, GRT) can be fully explained WITHOUT the
>> 'metaphysical' claim that "All inertial reference frames are
>> equivalent" - that claim by SRT is a myth, one that has NO
>> support in the evidence claimed for it. It is a totally
>> superfluous add-on to our picture of physical reality.
>> This being the case, the requirement (by mainstream physics) that
>> all phenomena/fields/whatever MUST conform to that claim is
>> arguably holding us back from making significant breakthroughs in
>> our understanding of reality - breakthroughs that might even
>> (dare I say it?) take us to the stars. We are fencing ourselves
>> in with an imaginary boundary.
>> Grahame
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:46 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>>
>> Albrecht:
>>
>> Tell me why this is not thought experiment that shows Einsteins
>> SRT interpretation gives rize to a paradox and therefore is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Twin Paradox Experiment:
>>
>> 1) Somewhere in an intergalactic space far away from all local
>> masses two identical twins are accelerated to opposite velocities
>> so that each thinks the other is traveling away from themselves
>> at velocity “v”.
>>
>> By the equivalence principle both feel the equivalent of a
>> temporary gravitational force which slows their clocks the same
>> amount. They are now drifting apart
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Each of the twins feels he is standing still and the other
>> twin is moving with a constant velocity “v” away. According to
>> special relativity the relation between their own time Δt and the
>> time they believe the other twins elapsed time Δt’ is; Δt’ = Δt/
>> (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3)
>>
>> After 1 year on Twin 1’sclock he believes twin two’s clock is
>> Δt_1 ’ = Δt_1 / (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2 After 1 year on Twin 1’sclock
>> he believes twin two’s clock is Δt_2 ’ = Δt_2 / (1-v^2 /c^2 )^1/2
>>
>> Thus Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months Lets assume the velocities are such
>> that Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 13 months.
>>
>> 4) After one year on their own clock each twin fires a retro
>> rocket that reverses their velocities. By the equivalence
>> principle the both clocks experience a gravity like force and
>> their clocks speed up. Lets assume the acceleration lasts 1 day
>> on their own clocks so now Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 12 months + 1day and
>> knowing the plan Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 13m + 1d
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 5) Now the two twins are drifting with the same relative velocity
>> but toward each other with opposite signs. Each twin thinks the
>> others clocks are lowing down by the formula Δt’ = Δt/ (1-v^2
>> /c^2 )^1/2 . They drift for exactly one year and now Δt_1 = Δt_2
>> = 24 months + 1day and they believing in special relativity think
>> Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 26 months.+ 1.083days.
>>
>> 6) now the stop rocket fires for half a day on each twins clock
>> and the twins come to rest exactly at the place they started.
>> Their own clocks tell Δt_1 = Δt_2 = 24 months + 1.5day and they
>> believing in special relativity think the others clock should be
>> Δt_1 ’ = Δt_2 ’ = 26 months.+ 1.583days.
>>
>> They get out of their space ship/ coordinate frames and find that
>> the two clocks tell exactly the same time so their belief in
>> special relativity was wrong.
>>
>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>> Research Director
>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>> On 5/30/2017 1:37 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolf,
>>>
>>> before we enter discussions about details I send you a drawing
>>> of my experiment with some explanations. I think that it is
>>> simple enough so that we do not need too much philosophy about
>>> epistemology to understand it.
>>>
>>> My drawing: At the left side you see a part of the ring of the
>>> synchrotron in which the electrons cycle. They hit the target T
>>> (at 0 m) where they are converted into photons. The photons fly
>>> until the target H_2 where they are deflected by a small angle
>>> (about one degree) (at 30.5 m). The deflected photons meet the
>>> converter (KONV at 35 m) where a portion of the photons is
>>> converted into an electron- position pair. The pair is detected
>>> and analysed in the configuration of the magnet 2 MC 30 and
>>> telescopes of spark chambers (FT between 37.5 and 39.5 m). The
>>> rest of detectors at the right is for monitoring the basic
>>> photon beam.
>>>
>>> In the magnet and the telescopes the tracks of both particles
>>> (electron and positron) are measured and the momentum and the
>>> energy of both particles is determined.
>>>
>>> Here all flying objects are interpreted as being particles,
>>> there is no wave model needed. So, I do not see where we should
>>> need here any QM.
>>>
>>> The rest of the mail will be commented later.
>>>
>>> Albrecht
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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 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/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 398 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 418 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0004.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 421 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0005.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0006.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 411 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0007.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 403 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0008.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/b8beaf07/attachment-0009.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list