[General] STR twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed Jun 7 05:54:25 PDT 2017
Wolf:
Am 06.06.2017 um 08:14 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> First there have been so many E-mails I do not know which one you want
> me to look at to understand your explanation. So please send me a copy
> of it again.
>
Sorry but I am not at home now and do not have this mail at hand. But
you will find it by its contents:
My mail was about this apparent conflict if two moving observes say that
the clock of the other one is slowed down compared to his own one. Which
is not a contradiction if you look at the time related Lorentz
transformation:
t' = gamma*(t-vx/c2)
where you have to insert correct values for v and x. You will find it in
a mail of last week.
This understanding is essential for any discussion of dilation.
>
> Of course if there is some special to interpret Einstein's intent
> that is not in Einstein's book then perhaps you are right ,
>
Which book of Einstein do you mean? As above, this is not a special
interpretation of Einstein's intent but the correct use of the Lorentz
transformation.
>
> if you are telling me that the only valid inertial frame is the frame
> of a third person god like observer who is stationary before the twins
> fire their rockets and in that frame both of the twins doing exactly
> the same thing would have exactly the same clock rates and therefore
> they will have the elapsed time when they meet.
No, you can take any frame you want. But for the whole process where you
use the Lorentz transformation you have to refer to the same frame.
> And further if you are telling me that both twins must realize that
> their own clock is slowing down and the other twin's clock is also
> slowing down because both twins must do their calculations in this
> special initial god like 3d person frame so both agree
No, it is not the condition that there is a god like person, but one has
to stay with one frame whichever it is.
>
> And further you are telling me that all the talk about there not being
> a special inertial frame, and everything is relative
> and neither twin believes he is in his own inertial frame because
> neither feels he is moving is a misinterpretation of SRT
whether someone feels that he is moving or not depends also on his
choice of the reference frame.
> and further that URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
>
> "Starting with Paul Langevin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin> in 1911, there have been
> various explanations of this paradox. These explanations "can be
> grouped into those that focus on the effect of different standards of
> simultaneity in different frames, and those that designate the
> acceleration [experienced by the travelling twin] as the main
> reason...".^[5]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Debs_Redhead-5>
> Max von Laue <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue> argued in
> 1913 that since the traveling twin must be in two separate inertial
> frames <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frames>, one on the way
> out and another on the way back, this frame switch is the reason for
> the aging difference, not the acceleration /per se/.^[6]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-6> Explanations
> put forth by Albert Einstein
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> and Max Born
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born> invoked gravitational time
> dilation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation>
> to explain the aging as a direct effect of acceleration.^[7]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-7>
> General relativity is not necessary to explain the twin paradox;
> special relativity alone can explain the phenomenon.^[8]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-8> ^[9]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-9> .^[10]"
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-10>
^Paul Langevin and Max von Laue are both correct with their explanation
as I already wrote in the other mail.
> ^
> Einstein and Born explanationis bull shit because in fact there is a
> preferred inertial frame i.e the frame in which both twins were
> initially at rest
Albert Einstein and Max Born are according to Wikipedia cited by other
books, but no contents are given. So, what shall I say?I know about
Einstein that he has, when he was asked about the twin paradox, referred
to acceleration in so far that in any case of acceleration the original
frames are left and so the Lorentz transformation is no longer
applicable. I have the facsimile of a letter which Einsteinonce wrote to
a former member of our pre-Vigier group(i.e. PIRT) saying just this.
I do not know and have never heard that Einstein referred the twin
paradox to gravity. And to referhere to gravitational time dilation is
so far from any logic that I cannot imagine that Einstein has mentioned
something like that at any time.
> ^
> Then I agree with you.
>
> But be careful what you wish for because this leads to my CAT
> theorythat all objects are created in the obserer's space and the
> observer always provides the fundamental background in which both
> Einsteins theory and Lorenz theory and for that matter maxwell's
> equations are valid. I would love to have you agree with my
> object-subject integrated physics, which I am developing. Look at my
> Vigier 10 paper to see I argued that Einsteins imagination was he
> special background space in which his thought experiment occurred.
^I am afraid that you will overload or over-interpret Einstein's theory
if using it for any observer dependent theories. Einstein himself
believed that there is an objective reality but that every inertial
frame is an own world in some sense. Relativity exists according to
Einstein completely independent of the existence of thinking humans.
> ^
> PS: your explanation is like Max von Laue's only he did not use a
> symmetric experiment protocol and therefore requires four reference
> frame switches, which leadme to ask how is the frame change
> implemented if not through the gravitational time dilation explanation
> put forward by Einstein and Born.
^Why so complicated? As soon as some objectchanges its speed it leaves
its original frame. That is simply the definition of a linear motion,
nothing philosophical beyond that.
And the symmetric version of the twin paradox is your proposal, so
neither Max von Laue nor somebody else will have used it. So only one
change of the frame, not two or more changes.
>
> we are getting closer soon I'll show you that the speed with which
> your particles move is the speed of Now In CAT not the speed of light,
> which is always changing and not at all constant.
For Einstein the speed of light is constant everywhere. I personally do
not agree to this because I follow the Lorentzian relativity, which Ido
because the Lorentzian SRT is based on physics whereas Einstein's
relativity is based on abstract principles. In general I do not like
principles as final solutions of open questions.
In a general view it is a big surprise for me that such a simple
physical phenomenon like SRT can be made or seen so complicated as it
appears in this discussion.
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 6/5/2017 7:15 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> 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 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>
>>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com
>> <a href="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/20170607/7d604f15/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list