[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Wed Sep 6 10:28:44 PDT 2017
Wolf,
I missed to answer this last mail of you, but I should do so.
Am 31.08.2017 um 07:40 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> I originally started this question because I tried to show that
> Einsteins SRT was wrong and then go on to propose some fixes. What I
> ran into was the comment that I did not understand SRT. Conclusion to
> date is that there apear to be many interpretations and fixes to what
> Einstein said and how his theory has be reinterpreted and updated. It
> is simply no good talking further unless one specifies which SRT one
> is taking about.
>
I do not understand why you see different interpretations of Einstein's
SRT. Because it is very clearly defined. There is another less popular
interpretation, the one of Hendrik Lorentz, which I personally prefer.
But also this one has the same logical consequences, just another
physical view. Maybe also better for those who want a feasible imagination.
>
> My last E-mail to Graham included a quote from Einstein's original
> paper which clearly stated that a clock moving around a closed circuit
> would lose time. if I read the 1905 paper further the example Einstein
> uses is to compare a clock on the equator with one on the pole
> claiming the equilateral clock will run slower. This statement even
> shows that Einstein had no qualms about including an accelerated
> reference frame. Until the ground rules as to what interpretation of
> SRT one is talking about I think it is not worth going on.
>
Einstein has in his example treated the motion along the circuit as a
summation (or better, integration) if pieces of inertial motion of
infinitesimal length. One could understand each infinitesimal piece as a
little twin case. In each linear piece SRT is fully applicable, and then
the frame changes and SRT has to continue in the next frame. And this is
going on for a large number of steps. There is no explicit acceleration
used.
>
> I would much rather continue the diussion along the Synchotron lines.
> That is why I i said "New"
>
> To respond to your comment empty space is flat it does not matter how
> far away you are from local masses you are surrounded by masses and
> that introduces symmetric forces that determine the gravitational
> potential, speed of EM interactions, the speed of light , and clock rates.
>
The more you are distant from any masses the smaller influence comes
from gravitational potentials. So one can put these influences below
each assumed threshold. That was meant.
>
> Einsteins GRT has gamma dependent on the gravitatinal potential , and
> obviously there are stars surrounding us so gravity determins the
> property of intergalactiv space.
>
Einstein's gamma has nothing to do with gravity.
>
> If you do not agree with this tell me why?
>
The point where I do not agree here is that you mix aspects of SRT and
of GRT which have nothing to do with each other. We know that in each
real physical situation we do have a mix of many influences, in your
example there is always a gravitational field. But our historical
progress in physics was that we can mentally abstract from this
situation so that we assume an environment reduced to one influence, and
so we can have clear results and distil physical laws from it.
>
> best wishes
>
> Wolf
>
Best wishes
Albrecht
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 8/30/2017 12:20 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf,
>>
>> the original twin "paradox" we are discussing here is meant to go on
>> in a space where there is no gravity. If there is gravity it will not
>> change a lot but makes the logic unnecessary complicated. So let's
>> take the original version.
>>
>> If both twins are passing each other, every one will see the other
>> one at the same speed. This is a simple consequence of symmetry.
>>
>> But your equation for time (below) is not correct but simplified in
>> an unacceptable way. The correct equation is
>>
>> t' = (t-xv/c^2 )* (1-c^2 /v^2 )^-1/2
>>
>> which also accounts for the synchronization problem.
>>
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 29.08.2017 um 06:09 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Graham:
>>>
>>> I do not see any misunderstanding except perhaps a semantic one -
>>> there is no paradox whether the clock rate is deduced from a
>>> knowledge of GRT or from well known experiments is not a distinction
>>> I think worth arguing about. The point is that given a broader
>>> knoweledge of physics that what Einstein explained in hie seminal
>>> 1905 paper there is no paradox. I agree.
>>>
>>> Albrecht:
>>>
>>> I just cannot grasp how you can say gravity has nothing to do with
>>> it. If two twins pass each other with a relative velocity would not
>>> the straight forward application of the Lorenz transformations
>>> result that both twins conclude the other twin is going more slowly
>>> than ones own. This is what Einstein and every elementary text on
>>> SRT calculates t' = t (1-c^2 /v^2 )^-1/2
>>>
>>> I'm not taking about anyting more, no additional understanding about
>>> clock rates from experiments or GRT, just the time dilation relationship
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 8/27/2017 11:48 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Grahame,
>>>>
>>>> without going into details of this discussion I only want to point
>>>> to the following fact:
>>>>
>>>> Whereas you are of course right that the twin situation is not a
>>>> paradox but logically clean, what we all as I think have
>>>> sufficiently discussed here, the following is not correct in my view:
>>>>
>>>> The twin situation has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with gravity.
>>>>
>>>> Two arguments for this:
>>>>
>>>> o The so called twin paradox is purely Special Relativity.
>>>> Gravity on the other hand, is General Relativity. This is the
>>>> formal point.
>>>>
>>>> o From practical numbers it is visible that gravity cannot be an
>>>> explanation. Take the usual example saying that one twin stays at
>>>> home and the other one travels - as seen from the twin at home -
>>>> for twenty years away and then twenty years back. From the view of
>>>> the twin at home, at the other ones return 40 years have gone. For
>>>> the travelling twin only one year has gone (This case is
>>>> theoretically possible if the proper speed is taken, about
>>>> 0.9997c)). Then the travelling twin would have saved 39 years of
>>>> life time. Now look at the possible influence of gravity: Assume it
>>>> takes the travelling twin a year to change his speed from almost c
>>>> to almost - c , then, even if the speed of proper time would
>>>> decrease to zero, he would have saved only one year. But, in this
>>>> example, he has saved 39 years. How could this work? No one in
>>>> physics assumes that proper time can run inversely. So this is no
>>>> possible explanation.
>>>>
>>>> How is it explained? I do not want to repeat again and again the
>>>> correct (but a bit lengthy) explanation, but I attempt to give a
>>>> short version: In Einstein's relativity the run of time in
>>>> different frames can logically not be continuously compared, it
>>>> can only be compared at interaction points where two clocks (or
>>>> whatever) are at the same position. And the determination of the
>>>> situation at such common position has to be done by the Lorentz
>>>> transformation. And this determination works, as many times said
>>>> here, without logical conflicts.
>>>>
>>>> If you solve this problem using the Lorentzian SRT, then the result
>>>> is the same but the argument is different, more physics-related,
>>>> and also better for the imagination. If wanted, I can of course
>>>> explain it.
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 27.08.2017 um 01:13 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>>>>> I'm sorry Wolf, but it seems that you're still not getting it.
>>>>> This situation can be explained fully logically WITHOUT either
>>>>> twin making any assumptions about SR or GR - simply from their own
>>>>> observations and from well-proven experimental findings.
>>>>> If we label the twins A and B, then their situations are
>>>>> effectively symmetric* - so we'll consider the scenario from the
>>>>> viewpoint of twin A.
>>>>> A considers him/herself static, and all motion to be attributable
>>>>> to twin B. So - and this agrees with experimental observation of
>>>>> clocks at high speed (in planes and in GPS satellites) - twin A
>>>>> will observe twin B's clock running slow, if A's own clock is not
>>>>> upset by any effect. HOWEVER, since A is actually travelling in
>>>>> circular motion, (s)he will experience a centripetal force;
>>>>> assuming him/herself to be static, this will necessarily be
>>>>> attributed to gravitational effects - and it's well known from
>>>>> experiment (Pound-Rebka and successors) that gravitational fields
>>>>> cause time dilation - so A will expect their own clock to be
>>>>> running more slowly also due to that 'gravitational' effect (note
>>>>> that this is not any assumption of SR or GR, simply inference from
>>>>> proven experimental results) [and so also A's observation of B's
>>>>> clock, measured against A's own clock, will not fit the standard
>>>>> SR time-dilation model, for reasons that A will fully
>>>>> comprehend]. For A, the cumulative time-dilation for B's
>>>>> perceived relative speed and for A's own perceived 'gravitational'
>>>>> effect exactly balance - so A will fully expect both clocks to
>>>>> coincide when the twins meet again (as B will also).
>>>>> No paradox.
>>>>> * It needs to be said that further study of causation of
>>>>> 'relativistic time dilation' leads to the understanding that this
>>>>> is an objective effect due to travelling at speed relative to the
>>>>> unique objectively-static universal reference frame. So if the
>>>>> centre of the circle traced out by A and B is itself in motion
>>>>> relative to that reference frame then it cannot be assumed that
>>>>> A's and B's motions will be symmetric; in that case their clocks
>>>>> may well not be precisely synchronised on their meeting again.
>>>>> This is an observation relating to physical reality, which in no
>>>>> way contradicts the self-consistency of SR (or GR) as a
>>>>> mathematical system.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Grahame
>>>>> =======
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Wolfgang Baer <mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>
>>>>> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 26, 2017 3:09 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear John W, Grahame nd Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot let this request for help go unanswered:
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe we have a any fundamental disagreement with
>>>>> the twin paradox. It never was anything more than a semantic
>>>>> problem. If two twins with identical and locally synchronized
>>>>> clocks are set on equal circular orbits in opposite directions
>>>>> and meet again and compare clocks, I believe it is an
>>>>> experimental fact that the clocks will run at the same rate
>>>>> (neglecting solar gravity if experiments are conducted near earth)
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[if !vml]-->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]-->
>>>>> <!--[endif]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> Fig 1
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[if !mso]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if
>>>>> !vml]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]-->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The appearance of a twin paradox in my opinion is completely
>>>>> due to Einstein’s sloppy writing. In his 1905 paper, which I
>>>>> looked up, he explicitly stated that a clock making a round
>>>>> trip at velocity “v” will slow down compared with a stationary
>>>>> observer. The argument that both observers applying Einstein’s
>>>>> theory would NOT come to this paradoxical conclusion is based
>>>>> on an interpretation by a host of well meaning physicists of
>>>>> Einstein’s original paper that suggests that each observer,
>>>>> knowing relativity would use this knowledge analyze the
>>>>> situation as shown in figure 1 above and therefore not expect
>>>>> the other clock to slow down. As Kracklauer correctly pointed
>>>>> out that there is an original SRT that had the twin paradox
>>>>> people justly criticized Einstein for it and a slightly
>>>>> revised SRT that explains it away is usually not mentioned. I
>>>>> think we all understand this and I have no argument with
>>>>> Albrecht on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now however I insist that the speed of light is NOT constant
>>>>> because it depends upon the situation the material (observer
>>>>> material) finds itself in a gravitational field. As long as
>>>>> the field in that material is fairly homogeneous the speed of
>>>>> light in that observers material is representative of the
>>>>> speed of EM interactions and is constant. And recognizing this
>>>>> dependency is critical to making progress in physics by
>>>>> eliminating the crazy adjustments to classical physics the
>>>>> wrog interpretation of bith SRT and GRT has hoisted upon us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now Albrecht correctly states that synchrotron experiments
>>>>> show that the speed of light is constant and the mass is varying.
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[if !vml]-->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso]-->
>>>>> <!--[endif]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> Fig 2
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[if !mso]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]--><!--[if !mso & !vml]--> <!--[endif]--><!--[if
>>>>> !vml]-->
>>>>>
>>>>> <!--[endif]-->
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now we have the situation of a charged particle traveling
>>>>> around a circular orbit. Like the Bohr model of the Hydrogen
>>>>> atom, except much faster. Now my CAT theory assumes that
>>>>> charge and mass are held together by a Force that I have
>>>>> introduced for example in the Vigier 9 paper. This means the
>>>>> internal structure of the orbiting electron would be expanded
>>>>> and the extra energy is stored not in a mass increase but in
>>>>> the stretch of the spring metaphorically holding the two together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interestingly enough both particles woul exhibit an internal
>>>>> rotation I believe is spin. I think I could duplicate
>>>>> Sommerfelds fine structure correction but have not had the
>>>>> time to do so and *would welcome help*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I thing I have a new and better interpretation od both SRT
>>>>> and GRT - I've been trying to get this across to Albrecht and
>>>>> I believe we now have tangible analysis problem before us to
>>>>> resolve our disagreement
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So let me steer the conversation to this new challenge
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/25/2017 7:48 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear John W and Grahame,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that I should explain a bit about this discussion
>>>>> between Wolf and myself. Why this discussion is as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I find the topic of Wolf about conciousness very interesting
>>>>> and very important. So I have continued with this discussion.
>>>>> But, unfortunately in my view, Wolf is basing his thoughts on
>>>>> a wrong understanding of relativity. The finds that this
>>>>> "incorrect" theory 'SRT' is an indication of our human failure
>>>>> to understand physics and so of our misleading consciousness.
>>>>> - But not SRT is incorrect (as some of you have already and
>>>>> repeatedly written) but Wolf's understanding is wrong. - I am
>>>>> trying to give Wolf a correct understanding as a precondition
>>>>> for a successful development of the issue of consciousness. I
>>>>> see that this may be boring for those who have understood
>>>>> relativity. But what else can we do to get ahead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature
>>>>> of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
>>>>> grahame at starweave.com
>>>>> <a
>>>>> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.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 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 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>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 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>
---
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/20170906/c2c33933/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1459 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170906/c2c33933/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2407 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170906/c2c33933/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the General
mailing list