[General] Fw: STR twin Paradox

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi Albrecht (et al.),

I'm sorry but, like so many others, you appear to be confusing reciprocity with (apparent) invariability.  Until one squarely addresses the issue of reciprocity (which is widely confirmed by experiment, for example in the LHC and by anomalous aberration of starlight), one is in no position to counter the conventional claim that all inertial reference frames are equivalent - that there is no unique objectively static reference frame.

It's of course axiomatic that any physical effect that leads to physical contraction in an object's direction of motion will also cause contraction of a ruler in that direction - so the object length will appear to be unaltered; likewise, it's axiomatic that an effect leading to reduction in passage-of-time effects in a moving object will cause corresponding reduction in rate of a clock (of whatever nature - including the one in an observer's brain) travelling at that same speed - so speeds, including the speed of light (for a slightly different reason), will appear unaltered.  This is apparent invariability - it is NOT reciprocity.

Reciprocity requires that if I am moving at speed v and you are static, not only will you see my clock moving at a slower speed as defined by time dilation - but I will, to precisely the same degree, see your clock as moving with the same time-dilation factor as YOU observe in MY clock; likewise, you will see the length of my spacecraft (or whatever) contracted in accordance with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction - and from MY perspective YOUR spacecraft (or whatever) will appear to be contracted to precisely the same degree.  THIS is reciprocity, and it cannot be so lightly brushed aside as you brush aside (correctly) the phenomenon of apparent invariability (which is in fact TRUE invariability of ratios of measurements in the same inertial frame).

It is reciprocity, not simply invariability, that leads to assertions of frame symmetry.  Clearly, if (as you and I both are certain is the case) there IS a unique objectively static inertial frame, then reciprocity cannot be simply a comparison of ratios in different frames: in a moving frame time dilation and contraction WILL apply, in the static frame they will NOT.  So how do we square this circle?

The answer is, once again, observer effects.  It is nothing like so easy as your dismissal of apparent invariance - but it CAN be shown that something which is clearly NOT the case in a static object (time dilation, contraction) will APPEAR to be so from a moving reference frame.  This is a significant feature of my published work, and it's absolutely essential to explaining SRT 'frame symmetry' from the perspective of a system that includes a uniquely static inertial reference frame.  SRT as it's generally accepted IS a myth (Hence the title of my latest book: "The Relativity Myth"), but it's a very pervasive and persuasive myth and one that needs firmly and thoroughly debunking if physics is to progress beyond this point at which it's currently stalled.

With regard to your comments on acceleration: I agree completely that acceleration is significantly different from gravitational effects, and that time dilation under acceleration is simply a summation of speed-based dilation; however that summation must of course be handled rather more carefully than simple constant-velocity time dilation, which involves simply a constant factor.  It's for this reason that the twins paradox resolves itself quite satisfactorily without breaching the bounds of standard SRT.

Best regards,
Grahame


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Albrecht Giese 
  To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
  Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170604/aad77eea/attachment.htm>