[General] STR twin Paradox
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Thu Jun 15 23:22:05 PDT 2017
Vivian
Thanks this is generally the Einstein gravity explanation I and Albrecht
have been arguing about for a couple of weeks.
You sate it well , thank you.
That does not mean I think it is the easiest and possibly correct theory
but it is what I believe one approach for explaining the twin paradox.
Wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 6/15/2017 12:02 AM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> However, an explantion invovling GR or acceleration cannot account for
> time dilation per SR! Consider the touch-tag version: The traceler
> is pre-accelerated before touching the stationary partner in passing
> at full veleocity to start the clockes. Likewise by the turn-around,
> arrange to have a third party with -v touch the traveler to start
> clocks. According to standard SR, the travel times computed for the
> intervals between start, turn-around and stop exhibit time dilations
> without considerations on acceleration, gravity, magic or whatever!
> Back to the drawing board!
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2017 um 05:43 Uhr
> *Von:* "Viv Robinson" <viv at universephysics.com>
> *An:* "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com>, "Nature of Light and
> Particles - General Discussion"
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* "'Darren Eggenschwiler'" <darren at makemeafilm.com>, "'Innes
> Morrison'" <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>, "'Mark, Martin van der'"
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
> Hi All,
> The best way to sort out a problem is to understand the physics behind
> a situation and then use mathematics to calculate the magnitude of the
> physical effect attributed to it. Lets look at the so called "twin
> paradox".
> Two observers O1 and O2 are next to and at rest with each other. Both
> have accurate atomic or whatever clocks. O2 is accelerated to speed v,
> travels for time t at v, is decelerated to rest wrt to O1, accelerated
> to v towards O1, again travels for a time and finally is decelerated
> to rest next to O1. They compare clocks. O2’s clock has slowed down
> wrt O1. Yet O2 has observed O1 traveling at v. So why doesn’t O1’s
> clock slow down wrt to O2?
> The answer is the acceleration. To accelerate O2, a force is applied
> to it. The combination of force and distance adds energy to O2 that is
> not added to O1. That energy is added to O2 in terms of kinetic energy
> or momentum change. No matter how small is the energy that is added,
> it is split between mass and velocity and causes a time dilation. They
> are the special relativity theory (SRT) corrections. That is something
> that O2 experiences and O1 does not experience.
> The fundamental difference that O2’s acceleration makes is that its
> mass increases as well as its velocity. Its time wrt O1 decreases. So
> while O2 may see O1 accelerating away, O1 is not the one experiencing
> the acceleration. Therefore O1 is not the observer whose mass is
> increasing and whose time is dilating. That is the physical reason why
> there is no "twin paradox".
> Time dilation due to acceleration and deceleration (calculable from
> gravity equivalence) appears to be cumulative. Acceleration effects
> may make a difference if O2 is rapidly accelerated to v and then
> immediately rapidly decelerated to rest wrt O1, followed by a rapid
> acceleration to v and an immediate deceleration to rest next to O1. O2
> will show SRT time dilation effect equal to the integrated effect of
> its relativistic velocity wrt O1. Those interested could calculate the
> acceleration effect from gravity equivalence and see how they compare.
> Apart from that the time delay O2 experiences is because of the
> velocity multiplied by time effect. When the time traveled is much
> longer than the acceleration time, the time delay experienced by O2
> will, for all practical purposes, be due to the SRT correction.
> The above has described the physics of the so called “twin paradox”.
> There is no paradox. O2’s time slows relative to O1 because O2 is the
> one that has been accelerated. Einstein was correct on both
> situations, the relativistic time correction and that they are only
> experienced by the accelerated observer.
> Of course you are free to disagree with the above. However if you feel
> compelled to point out that it is wrong, it is best done by forwarding
> the physics that makes it wrong and then present the mathematics
> required to show the magnitude of the physical effect. Then show how
> it agrees with experimental observation. In doing that remember that
> experimentalist using accurate atomic clocks have many times verified
> the SRT time corrections.
> There are two ways by which the SRT corrections can be applied. One is
> that there is an absolute zero reference somewhere in space and all
> corrections are applied from it. The other is that the SRT corrections
> are a property of any particle moving wrt another. I have previously
> published some calculations that suggest that the rotating or toroidal
> photon model for the structure of matter is responsible for the SRT
> corrections of matter. With all sub atomic particles, proton, neutron
> electron and neutrino having a rotating or toroidal photon structure,
> the SRT corrections are automatically inbuilt into every particle. As
> such I am happy that Einstein’s SRT corrections will always apply.
> Remember that all linear motions are relative to the observer. However
> accelerations and circular motions are absolute. O1 and O2 may start
> out at 0.5 c wrt O3. O2 may be decelerated to rest wrt O3, remain at
> rest wrt O3 and then accelerated back to 0.5c to return to rest next
> to O1. O1 will still see O2’s clock as having lost time. O3 will see
> an entirely different situation. But remember O3 can only see what is
> happening to O1 and O2 by using photons. O3’s time dilation
> observations of O1 and O2 must include the SRT corrections as well as
> Doppler effect and distance changes. Complex but calculable to those
> interested.
> Chip, regarding your analogy of A and B. At one stage in their life
> they were at the same place at the same time, even if it was only at
> birth. To find out which will be the younger you need to establish
> their background. If A remained at rest and B was accelerated away
> from A, B will be the younger when they both meet up again. If they
> both travelled away with equal accelerations, velocities and time they
> will both appear the same age. Both would be younger than a person
> born at the same place at the same time and remained at that place
> when they all met up again.
> I am quite happy to accept that all linear motion is relative. It
> agrees with SRT and experiment. I am also satisfied that the rotating
> or toroidal photon model for an electron (and other particles) gives a
> physical description that matches both SRT and observation.
> Cheers,
> Vivian Robinson
>
> On 15 June 2017 at 12:43:26 AM, Chip Akins (chipakins at gmail.com
> <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>) wrote:
>
> Hi John
>
> Yes. When I used the large circle example, I was afraid that
> someone would divert the conversation from Special Relativity. I
> suppose I deserve that.
>
> Back to Special Relativity.
>
> One Twin (Twin B) is moving at a constant highly relativistic
> velocity toward Twin A. Twin B thinks Twin A is moving, Twin A
> thinks Twin B is moving. When twin B arrives at Twin A’s location,
> Twin A expects Twin B to be younger, Twin B expects Twin A to be
> younger. Mutually exclusive conditions (if all motion is
> relative). So all motion is not relative. Simple, even for post
> grads, like you and me.
>
> I welcome constructive, logical, suggestions, but please refrain
> from condescension, it does not help the cause.
>
> Chip
>
> *From:*General
> [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> *On Behalf Of *John Williamson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:19 AM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> *Cc:* Darren Eggenschwiler <darren at makemeafilm.com>; Innes
> Morrison <innes.morrison at cocoon.life>; Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [General] STR twin Paradox
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv at universephysics.com
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.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 af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to
> unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170615/02ac51a5/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list