[General] STR twin Paradox

[John Williamson]

Hi Chip,

What happens for a circulating (near) lightspeed object is, not that local time or length changes, but the ring appears to get smaller for the participant - shrinking to zero length ring at lightspeed. Clocks onboard act normally. They will feel, however, feel an acceleration unless in free-fall, which can occur for a curved space -time or round the edge of the universe, for example. You really need to expand your thinking to General relativity (which is, of course, itself not the most general of all the possible proper descriptions of space and time, as it has only a simple scalar curvature) to get a proper grip on this.

Someone mentioned a muon storage ring. the stored Muons decay normally according to themselves, but see a much smaller ring. They also feel a permanent transverse acceleration. The is also (synchrotron)radiation, but this is from the system ring+muons, rather than from the muons themselves.

Most of the rest of the discussion on this has been at a level usually treated at undergraduate level. Grahame is right: you will not find a mathematical contradiction in special relativity. All this stuff has been done before.

Hope this helps,

Cheers, John.

Regards, John W.
________________________________
From: General [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] on behalf of Chip Akins [chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:12 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Grahame

The reason for the huge circle in my thought experiment, is so that the velocity can be very close to c, causing relativistic time dilation, and that velocity dependent time dilation would dominate the experiment, while acceleration induced time variation would be far less significant.

And I agree with you that space possesses a reference rest frame where time is not retarded in any of these or similar circumstances.

But the important thing, I believe, is that all motion cannot be relative, and there cannot be full reciprocity regarding the effects of motion.  For if all motion is relative, then there is just no solution which satisfies the equations and does not present a paradox. If all motion is relative, then twin A will be younger than twin B, and twin B will be younger than twin A. But of course these are mutually exclusive answers, so all motion is not relative.

So as it stands, if I am reading the comments correctly, you, me, Chandra, and Albrecht, agree that there is a more Lorentzian form of relativity, (which I feel is caused by matter being made of confined light-speed energy) which is the proper physical form of relativity in or universe.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments!!!

Chip

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:09 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi chip,

I'm 100% with you on this!
I really don't understand the notion that 'the universe is an observer effect' - it makes no sense to me whatsoever.  By the same token, the notion that 'collapse of the wavefunction' is precipitated by observation/measurement is to me quite fanciful - for me there is a much more straightforward explanation for the phenomenon referred to as 'wavefunction collapse' (which I don't believe to be a collapse of any kind!)

I'm sorry for not responding to your previous post sooner; I was planning to send a comment, but have been fully occupied with other pressing matters of late.  My observation relates to your thought experiment in which each 'twin' sees the other as travelling in a large circle at high speed.  For me there is no paradox at all in this from the SR perspective (though like you, I am of the firm opinion that there exists one unique objectively static rest-frame [subject to Hubble expansion, of course], all other 'rest frames' are in motion in absoolute terms).

If one twin is seen by the other as moving in a circle - however large - but regards themself as being at rest, then they will instead experience a force which the other twin will regard as acceleration towards the centre of the circle but that they themself will regard as influence of a gravitational field (if you doubt this, just posit an accelerometer on their ship with a readout that can be seen by, or communicated to, their twin).  That influence will be directly comparable with the centripetal force of constant-speed circular motion and will be regarded by that twin as causing identical time dilation for them c.f. one outside the influence of that field.  They will therefore expect their OWN clock to be slowed by an exactly corresponding amount from the perspective of one not subject to that 'gravitational field' - so they will fully expect their clock and that of their twin to be retarded by a precisely-equal degree, and so that both clocks would show identical times on comparison when again passing each other.

[As a point of detail, making it a very BIG circle in no way reduces the validity of this analysis, it simply requires more accurate instrumentation - as is always the case with regard to details of SR & GR.]

As I said in my previous comment, it very much appears to me that SR is 100% self-consistent mathematically.  This does not make it correct as a representation of physical reality - but trying to discredit SR by attempting to find a flaw in the math is to me a non-starter!  SR will ONLY be shown to be an incorrect assumption (in respect specifically of equivalence of all inertial reference frames) by consideration of the energetic formation of particles (which can also be approached indirectly by way of the Energy-Momentum Relation).

[Another point of detail: I have included a fairly exhaustive analysis of Hasselkamp et al's experiment in my book: this shows that even so-called '2nd order Doppler effect' cannot be used to detect motion of the earth wrt the objective universal rest state, no matter how accurate readings or instrumentation.  SR is a VERY tightly-meshed cage!]

Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Chip Akins<mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [General] STR twin Paradox

Hi Chandra

I don’t know if the others are not receiving my posts or if they are just being ignored.

The current exchange is quite disheartening however.

To postulate that an observer creates the universe he experiences is absurd in so many ways, and counter to the evidence in so many ways, that I cannot believe we have spent so much time in such a discussion.

All the evidence suggests the universe existed before observers, and continues to exist as each of us dies. The universe does what it does whether we observe it or not.  We can only make very slight, insignificant changes to the overall state of the universe. When we cause an interaction to occur by observation, it has an effect, but that does not mean that the universe is observer-centric. It just means that the universe does what it does.  When interactions occur a set of rules exist which govern those interactions.

In a universe which is in effect created in the mind of the observer, I am the only observer that I know to exist.  The rest of the mentally imagined observers I interact with are figments of my mind. So it does no good to communicate with those figments and try to convince those imagined others of anything.

Experience indicates that this is not the type of universe we live in.  Other sentient minds are present, all of us finding that Washington DC is located in the same spot and has the same buildings. We live in a single universe which has many sentient minds all seeing principally the same thing. We know this because we communicate with others, and compare notes.

Once we understand the physics well enough we can see that wave-function collapse is NOT required to explain an interaction. So the reason for some quantum physicists overreaching and concluding that the observer has a significant bearing on physics then is a mute argument.

We, as a species, seem to tend to look for the most “mentally stimulating” explanations, rather than sticking to the scientific approach, and looking for the most theoretically economical and practical answers.

The universe has many lessons for us embedded within.  One of the most striking lessons is the elegant simplicity of how everything works.  If we keep this elegant simplicity in mind as we look for the rest of the answers, we are far more likely to find the right answers.

Warmest Regards

Charles (Chip) Akins


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170614/24c5e82f/attachment.htm>