[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