[General] STR twin Paradox

Mon Jun 5 07:15:26 PDT 2017

Wolf,

to summarize: Einstein's book is not wrong, but if you use it in a wrong 
way then the results are conflicting.

Am 05.06.2017 um 04:26 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> On 6/4/2017 9:40 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
> Each twin has two choices
>> 1.) He ignores physics. He travels forth and back and when he is back 
>> again, he meets twin 2 and can compare the clocks of both. They will 
>> indicate the same time. So he will not see any problem.
> He does not ignore physics but ignores SRT. Both twins do exactly the 
> same thing and physics tells them to expect to get the same result.

>> 2.) He knows physics SRT and particularly special relativity. And, to 
>> be close to your case, he may define after his start his frame of 
>> motion as the reference frame. So in this frame his clock will run 
>> with normal speed. 
> His frame of reference is his spaceship outfitted with real meter 
> sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the doppler 
> shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows the 
> other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself
Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to one frame. If 
one changes his frame, anything is new.
>> Then, whenhis retro rocket has started, he will notice the 
>> acceleration. He knows that compared to his previous state of motion 
>> he is now moving towards twin 2 with a speed which you have called v. 
> His frame of reference is still his spaceship outfitted with real 
> meter sticks and real clocks. He looks outside and measures the 
> doppler shift from a predefined signal frequency and so each one knows 
> the other is moving away at velocity 'v' relative to himself only now 
> the velocity is toward each other.
If he still understands his spaceship as his frame after the retro 
rocket has started then he leaves the conditions for the validity of SRT.
>> And as he knows physics, he will be aware of the fact that now his 
>> own clock will run differently than before. 
> No he reads a book on special relativity written by Einstein that 
> tells him the other twins clock should run slowthan his own.
If he reads and understands special relativity following Einstein then 
he knows that now /also his own clock /runs slower.
>> So if he wants to understand what is going on and if he still takes 
>> his original state of motion as his reference frame, he has torealize 
>> that his clock is now running slower. 
> Why would he take his original state of motion as his reference frame? 
> That would be some imaginaty space ship still moving away at velocity 
> "v". His reference frame is his space ship, something may have 
> effected its clocks and rods but his frame is his frame. You are 
> making up a story about his own clocks that are obviously running 
> exactly the way they always as far as his observations are concerned  
> in order to make the theory he read in the SRT book more valid than 
> what he actually sees and can measure.
The Lorentz transformation which we are talking about defines the 
transformation from one (inertial) frame to another one. If twin 1 takes 
his spaceship as his frame /a//fter /the acceleration then any facts 
from thetime before are no longer of relevance.
>> - On the other hand, if he wants to understand the situation of twin 
>> 2 he has to realize that the speed of twin 2, *takin**g place with v 
>> in relation to his own original frame,****causes a slow down of the 
>> clock **of t**win 2*. But then, after twin 2 has fired his retro 
>> rocket, twin 2 will have speed = 0 with respect to the original frame 
>> of twin1. So the clock of twin 2 will now run in the normal way. 
> Compared with an imaginary frame. We and Einstein claimed to deals 
> with real rods and clocks
Any rod and any clock is according to Einstein related to a frame and 
makes no sensewithout such reference. If one changes his frame, anything 
is new. The word "real" has a limited meaning in that case.
>> - If you now add the different phases of both clocks, i.e. the phases 
>> of normal runand the phases of slow down, you will see that the 
>> result is the same for both twins. And this is what I have explained 
>> quantitatively in my last mail.
> All one has to do is to add to the protocol that each twin should take 
> a faximily of their own clocks and  compare them later by your own 
> analysis (*see bold face above*) each twin would believe his own Fax 
> would run at the normal rate but the other would slow down.
Here you misunderstand how dilation works. I have tried to show you 
earlier that clock comparison is not so simple. If two observers move 
with respect to each other, then in a naive view the observer holding 
clock 1 would say that clock 2 runs slower and at the same time the 
observer holding clock 2 would say that clock 1 runs slower. This is as 
a fact logically not possible. I have explained in the other mail how 
this comparison works correctly so that the logical conflict does not 
occur. Please look at that mail again and we can continue our discussion 
on that basis.
>
> In other words the experiment gives the answer logic would expect, but 
> the story in Einstain's book is wrong. It is not that mooving clocks 
> do not slow down but the theory explaining it is different and must 
> include the physics of the observer, which I'll describe next once we 
> get this point straightened out.
Einstein is not wrong but you are using the Lorentz transformation in an 
incorrect way. Please read the other mail again and we can discuss on 
that basis.
>>
>> I must say that I have problems to understand where you have a 
>> difficulty to see this.
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170605/8d8b7b17/attachment.htm>