[General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
Albrecht Giese
phys at a-giese.de
Sat Sep 16 07:31:07 PDT 2017
Wolf,
when you say that acceleration of a charge is normally done by the
application of an electric field, then I find this an interesting point.
According to Maxwell's theory the radiation should be independent of the
type of acceleration. But that may be questionable as Maxwell's
equations are on the one hand a very good and usable description of
electric and magnetic phenomena but on the other do not tell us anything
about the physical causes of the relation of electric and magnetic fields.
In the view of my particle model this radiation is caused by the
reaction between charges and fields. But I know that this is not common
understanding. But that would, if applicable, indeed mean that
acceleration e.g. in a gravitational field will not cause radiation.
If we follow this view then the radiation at acceleration would not be
in conflict with the equivalence principle. But the other aspect,
dilation, is in conflict. There is very clearly dilation in a
gravitational field but clearly not with respect to acceleration. Best
proof for the letter was, as I have already written, the muon storage
ring at CERN. - This latter does not help the observer in Einstein's
cabin but is in general a violation of the equivalence principle.
And so Einstein's logical basis for General Relativity does not exist. -
However, there is a version of General Relativity which does not have
these problems, that is the extension of the Lorentzian interpretation
of SRT towards GRT. You find this on my web site:
www.ag-physics.org/gravity .
Regarding your comment concerning the Van Allen Belt: What has radiation
in that case to do with magnetism?
Albrecht
Am 14.09.2017 um 04:16 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>
> Albrecht:
>
> Just rereading some of your E-mail.
>
> "Two arguments: (1) If an observer has a charged object with him, this
> will radiate at acceleration but not at rest in a gravitational field;
> (2) a gravitational field causes dilation of time, but acceleration
> does not. - I have asked one of the leading professors in Germany
> about this and he has answered: Yes, there is a deficiency in
> Einstein's theory. "
>
> Then you would say the equivalence principle is simply wrong or does
> it depend upon the kind of acceleration? The acceleration in free fall
> is different than the acceleration in a rocket ship. In one case the
> push comes from electric forces in the other the clock in freefall
> feels no electric force. Do charged particles in the Van Alen belt
> radiate ie. produce a magnetic field due to their motion.?
>
> If the equivalence principle is wrong what is left of general relativity?
>
> I'm out of town till MOnday
>
> wolf
>
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
> On 9/9/2017 8:59 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>
>> Wolf:
>>
>>
>> Am 06.09.2017 um 05:44 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>
>>> Yes lets get off SRT. I should have started a completely new thread.
>>>
>>> answers below
>>>
>>> I should say I'm very anxious to work wth you on physics problems
>>> but unless you understand that in order to logically explain our 1st
>>> person experience we must build physics on new principles and we
>>> cannot dismiss possibilities out of hand , we must examine the
>>> foundations
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>>
>>> Wolf
>>>
>> Yes, we must examine the foundations, but we need something to
>> discuss about. Up to now most of us have started with the physics as
>> we know it. If there are new models we can also discuss those, but we
>> have to start with something. And this "something" has to be
>> validated by experiments, i.e. not pure fantasy. Those parts I find
>> missing in your contributions.
>>>
>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>> Research Director
>>> Nascent Systems Inc.off
>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>> On 9/4/2017 9:56 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wolf,
>>>>
>>>> comments in the text.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 02.09.2017 um 05:40 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>
>>>>> Albrecht:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok Then we both agree on the same formula for the same experiment
>>>>> and is no other factors are taken into account then there is a
>>>>> paradox and there is no doubt in my mind that Einstein knew it and
>>>>> developed GRT to expand the applicability of his theory.
>>>>>
>>>> No, there is no paradox at all. And also in the view of Einstein
>>>> there is no paradox. He wrote once about the twin experiment a
>>>> letter to someone whom I know saying that the travelling twin is
>>>> changing his frame and so there is no symmetry in the process.
>>>> Therefore no paradox.
>>>>
>>>> And, of course, there was never a need to develop GRT to solve this
>>>> problem as it is no problem. Einstein developed GRT in order to
>>>> extend the independence from inertial frames to non-inertial
>>>> frames. That was his intention.
>>>>
>>>> I must say, as long as you insist that there is a paradox about the
>>>> twins because you do not understand it in a better way, I do not
>>>> see much use of continuing this discussion. You have to get a
>>>> better understanding of relativity, otherwise we will both gain
>>>> nothing but wast our time. Please come back with a better
>>>> understanding. There have been enough arguments about SRT and the
>>>> twin experiment in this forum to make an understanding possible.
>>>> And particularly you have ignored the arguments which I used, not
>>>> answering them but continuously repeating your statements. It
>>>> cannot go on this way.
>>> again we've beaten this to death. You interpretation of SRT has no
>>> paradox because there is a frame change. Fine. No problem.
>>> However do you or do you not believe in the equivalence principle?
>> I assume that you mean the strong equivalence principle, true?
>>
>> I do not believe in the strong equivalence principle as I have said
>> it repeatedly, last time in my mails to Chip and Grahame. That means
>> that gravity and acceleration are not two words for the same
>> phenomenon as Einstein has assumed. Two arguments: (1) If an observer
>> has a charged object with him, this will radiate at acceleration but
>> not at rest in a gravitational field; (2) a gravitational field
>> causes dilation of time, but acceleration does not. - I have asked
>> one of the leading professors in Germany about this and he has
>> answered: Yes, there is a deficiency in Einstein's theory. - But I
>> think this is not a deficiency but it proofs Einstein's GRT to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we've beaten SRT and the twins to death. Lets go on I just
>>>>> finished the draft for my book and sent it off to Routledge. The
>>>>> first chapter gives a summary and is attached. It is physics only
>>>>> to the extent that once we realize that we are event creating
>>>>> objects not objects observing events then the physics must also
>>>>> change. In chapter 4 I get into event physics or action theory
>>>>> and this may pass the editor but is not to my liking yet. So this
>>>>> already is a long chapter and if you like it enough to help with
>>>>> the physics we can go on.
>>>>>
>>>> This is a lot of text and I will need some time to read it. But
>>>> when looking through it I do not find any quantitative statements
>>>> in it. How can we judge whether it conforms to the observation? -
>>>> During the last 20 years when I did alternative physics and attend
>>>> to conferences about it I have listened to many elegant looking
>>>> theories. But they cannot all be true as they had very different
>>>> solutions for our understanding of physics. So we need criteria to
>>>> judge. The best criterion we have in physics is to compare the
>>>> results of a theory quantitatively with observations. This is
>>>> needed to go on. And I am waiting for it as I have repeatedly said.
>>> The idea is to build a framework that contains a logical explanation
>>> of our first person experience. To make progress we need to take a
>>> deep look at who we are and how we process our experiences. The
>>> first chapter is intended to give you an overview of the kind of the
>>> event oriented view point one needs to take when one realizes that
>>> we are events that create objects not objects that create events. If
>>> you are not willing to examine yourself and give up the idea that
>>> the 3D world and moving objects making a 4D world is anything more
>>> than the working reality based upon the processing and mental
>>> display our species is designed to produce then the context of my
>>> physics explorations will not make sense and you will simply always
>>> say "your calculations do not agree with what I and my physics
>>> colleagues already know to be the truth"
>> As I have already said several times: If we - or you - want to go
>> deeper, as you say, to have better insights, then please make a
>> quantitative proposal which can be discussed. -- But maybe that this
>> does not make much sense as long as there are errors in your
>> understanding about our present state of physics.
>>>
>>> I this case I can only ask you to entertain only the physics
>>> question of what holds charge and mass together?
>> I have a model for the cause of inertial mass. In this model your
>> question is easily explained - or is irrelevant, which way ever one
>> wants to formulate it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time I'm thinking about relativistic inertia and
>>>>> believe that just like simply introducing the speed of light as
>>>>> Potential energy by being inside the distant mass shell can
>>>>> explain most if not all of Einsteins clock and light bending
>>>>> phenomena I think we must also remember that inertia of a particle
>>>>> is also dependent upon the totality of influence within which we
>>>>> live. I'm simply developing Machs principle.
>>>>>
>>>> Just to remind you that Mach's position was that there has to be
>>>> some kind of ether so that we can have inertia. Einstein called
>>>> this requirement "Mach's Principle". It is a big word for something
>>>> which is in fact quite simple: The requirement for an ether. - Also
>>>> my model of inertia uses this type of ether. In this respect I
>>>> conform with Mach. But "principle" is not a good word.
>>> Yes and my position is that there is an aether but that it is always
>>> attached to the observer's material and all systems are observers.
>> The aether which Lorentz meant or which Mach meant is a universal
>> one, not dependent on an observer. Should it be not a universal one,
>> it would not give the help (or function) which we need here.
>>>>>
>>>>> However I'm also introducing a restoration force between charge
>>>>> and mass centers this gives me a topology of cyclic influences
>>>>> also a cycle at the speed of light only by adding mass your charge
>>>>> cycles can also radiate gravitational influences.
>>>>>
>>>>> _| --<---<-----<----<----<---_|
>>>>>
>>>>> |__> ch ->ch->.m->m->^|
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm placing the ch->m and the m->ch center influence as interior
>>>>> to matter in the quantum realm. I know you want to explain mass
>>>>> wih your rotating charges but might the effect your charges
>>>>> produce not also be visualized as mass influence centers and
>>>>> therefore mass chasrge chasing each other might work with your
>>>>> concept.
>>>> Your relation between charge and mass is not very plausible for me.
>>>> I recommend that you give a quantitative description on your
>>>> concept about this. Otherwise I am afraid that I will not
>>>> understand your point.
>>> If one can define a center of mass and a center of charge for a ball
>>> on a table. Then the center of mass is pulled down toward the earth
>>> by gravity, and the center of charge is pushed up by coulomb forces
>>> , the cumulative effect is a slight distortion of in which the
>>> charge and mass centers are separated. One might call it a
>>> cumulative bulk effect where all the protons with a heavier mass are
>>> shifted down relative to the charges. If there were no force holding
>>> charge and mass together the mass would instantly fall toward the
>>> center of the earth.
>> Why is the charge pushed up? Which field do you assume? Normally we
>> all live in a situation with no electric field. - And on the other
>> hand it is a strange model for me that there is not only a centre of
>> charge (which I can easily imagine) but also a centre of mass. In the
>> Higgs theory there is no centre of mass, in my model there is also no
>> centre of mass, but in both models mass is a dynamical process which
>> on the micro-scale is not situated in a point. What is your model?
>>> The normal answer is not only that the behavior of material can be
>>> approximated by assuming that all its charge and mass is located at
>>> a point. However that is the point particle assumption pervasive in
>>> physics. Let's assume mass and charge are held together by a force
>>> that can be approximated as a spring. Conventional physics assumes
>>> this constant is infinite and no matter what forces are applied the
>>> mass and charge of a particle such as an electron is always collocated.
>> No, conventional physics does not say this. Mass is a process not a
>> point as said above.
>>> Well lets look at this assumption in the case of the Bohr atom or
>>> synchotron motion.
>> The Bohr atom is a quite extended thing build by electrons and by
>> quarks. We should look at these particles, electrons and quarks, not
>> at extended structures which are not particles.
>>>
>>> best wishes
>>> Wolf
>> Best wishes
>> Albrecht
>>>>
>>>> Albrecht
>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>> Research Director
>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>> On 9/1/2017 1:17 AM, Albrecht Giese wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wolf,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> just a short answer to this mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein's example is a simplified situation. It is simplified in
>>>>>> so far that the moving clock comes back to the clock at rest. So
>>>>>> in the equation which I have given:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t' = (t-xv/c^2 )* (1-c^2 /v^2 )^-1/2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the distance x becomes 0 (zero). Then your equation can be used.
>>>>>> But if two moving clocks are compared in a state where they are
>>>>>> at different positions then the full equation (above) has to be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The short version is also applicable for the twin experiment
>>>>>> because at the end both twins meet again at the same position.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which respect is there a paradox?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Albrecht
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 30.08.2017 um 07:54 schrieb Wolfgang Baer:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've now looked up the reference from "on the Electrodynamics of
>>>>>>> moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein translated from Annalen der
>>>>>>> Physik 17,1905 in The Principle of Relativity by H.A. Lorentz,
>>>>>>> A Einstein, H. , wit notes by A Sommerfeld p 49 in Section #4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is
>>>>>>> also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this
>>>>>>> result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a
>>>>>>> closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the
>>>>>>> journey lasting t seconds, then by the the clock remained at
>>>>>>> rest the traveled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 t v^2
>>>>>>> /c^2 seconds slow."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am I wrong in interpreting these words as implying a twin
>>>>>>> paradox.? I'm not claiming that there is a twin paradox.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only that the straight forward interpretation of Einstein's
>>>>>>> words suggest there is a paradox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
>>>>>>> Research Director
>>>>>>> Nascent Systems Inc.
>>>>>>> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
>>>>>>> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com
>>>>>>> On 8/29/2017 3:41 AM, Dr Grahame Blackwell wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht,
>>>>>>>> Regrettably, you appear to have misread my text. If you read
>>>>>>>> it again more carefully, you will see that at NO point do I
>>>>>>>> propose, or even suggest, that acceleration gives rise to time
>>>>>>>> dilation. I am well aware that, as you say, "gravity and
>>>>>>>> acceleration are different regarding [time] dilation" - so your
>>>>>>>> attempts to persuade me of this are quite unnecessary.
>>>>>>>> The whole point of my text was, as I said at the outset, to
>>>>>>>> resolve the 'twins going opposite directions around a circle'
>>>>>>>> paradox, with reference to classical SR (and GR, as it happens
>>>>>>>> - bear with me on this). For SR to be self-consistent (which I
>>>>>>>> believe it is - that's not the same as it being correct!) there
>>>>>>>> has to be an explanation that fits the terms of Relativity
>>>>>>>> which explains how it can be that both A and B would expect
>>>>>>>> their clocks to coincide on re-meeting - as they clearly would
>>>>>>>> from the perspective of a third observer, static with respect
>>>>>>>> to the circle centre, and so they must of course coincide from
>>>>>>>> everyone's perspective. If it can be shown that they'd expect
>>>>>>>> their clocks to be different then Relativity is dead - but it
>>>>>>>> is most definitely not that simple! [That's why it's survived
>>>>>>>> for over a century; it's not just that thousands of other
>>>>>>>> physicists over that century have been incapable of such analysis!]
>>>>>>>> Relativity states that any scenario can validly be assessed
>>>>>>>> from the perspective of any individual, who may consider
>>>>>>>> themself to be static - and that their assessment of that
>>>>>>>> scenario is equally 'correct' to any OTHER assessment from any
>>>>>>>> other frame of reference. SR restricts such assessment to
>>>>>>>> inertial frames, GR extends it to non-inertial frames - but
>>>>>>>> this same principle holds true.
>>>>>>>> We can add to this the fact that if such an observer
>>>>>>>> experiences what we might refer to as a 'G-force' acting on
>>>>>>>> them then they will know that they must be in a non-inertial
>>>>>>>> frame. The term 'G-force' is convenient for our purposes as it
>>>>>>>> is used to apply both to forces due to gravitation and to
>>>>>>>> accelerating forces; it is implicit in GR (through the
>>>>>>>> Equivalence Principle) that the observer will not know which of
>>>>>>>> these two applies (Einstein's 'man in a box' thought
>>>>>>>> experiment), but that if (as he fully validly may, under
>>>>>>>> Relativity) he considers himself to be at rest then he must
>>>>>>>> necessarily attribute such forces to gravitational effects
>>>>>>>> (without having to ascertain where those effects arise from -
>>>>>>>> that could be tricky in our example scenario!)
>>>>>>>> Please not that I am NOT saying that these principles actually
>>>>>>>> apply in our physical reality - I am simply stating the mantra
>>>>>>>> of Relativity, both SR and GR, since that's the mathematical
>>>>>>>> framework in which I'm seeking to show self-consistency. Others
>>>>>>>> in the group are proposing that Relativity is disproved by this
>>>>>>>> 'twins thought experiment', I'm observing that it is not; the
>>>>>>>> truth or falsehood of Relativity as a model of true reality is
>>>>>>>> not what I'm about here - in fact I'm seeking to show that
>>>>>>>> Relativity CANNOT be disproved by such a simple setup, it needs
>>>>>>>> rather more thought than that!
>>>>>>>> Albrecht, I think you misunderstand my purpose here. It's not
>>>>>>>> my intention EITHER to prove OR to disprove Relativity; my sole
>>>>>>>> intention is to show that this 'twins scenario' does NOT show
>>>>>>>> an inconsistency in Relativity - it is NOT a paradox. In this
>>>>>>>> respect the question of whether Relativity does or does not
>>>>>>>> match true objective reality is totally irrelevant; the only
>>>>>>>> question is whether or not Relativity agrees with itself.
>>>>>>>> The importance if this exercise shouldn't be underestimated: if
>>>>>>>> we are to challenge the fundamental premises of Relativity, it
>>>>>>>> has to be on FAR stronger ground than a proposed 'paradox' that
>>>>>>>> has been refuted time and time again over the past 100 years -
>>>>>>>> we do ourselves, and science, a serious disservice if we
>>>>>>>> convince fans of Relativity that our view that it's wrong is
>>>>>>>> based on a simplistic misunderstanding of its basics!
>>>>>>>> So, again: external observer sees A and B perform mirror images
>>>>>>>> of each others' manoeuvres - so of course clocks will match on
>>>>>>>> re-meeting. So A and B will also see clocks coinciding - and
>>>>>>>> fully expect that to be the case. How come, given that
>>>>>>>> Relativity allows each to see their position in the universe as
>>>>>>>> static?
>>>>>>>> Simple: since the external observer sees A (for example) as
>>>>>>>> experiencing acceleration towards the centre of the circle, A
>>>>>>>> him/herself will inevitably experience a G-force acting outward
>>>>>>>> from the centre of that observer's circle. Considering
>>>>>>>> him/herself static in space, A will have no option but to
>>>>>>>> regard that as a gravitational effect from some unknown source
>>>>>>>> (note that physicists have no trouble envisaging gravitation
>>>>>>>> acting from unknown sources - we're told that such sources make
>>>>>>>> up the vast majority of the mass-energy in our universe!).
>>>>>>>> Since A knows that gravitation causes time dilation (NOTE THAT
>>>>>>>> I AM *NOT* PROPOSING, HERE OR ANYWHERE, THAT ACCELERATION
>>>>>>>> CAUSES SUCH DILATION), he/she will inevitably expect their
>>>>>>>> clock to have been slowed, as well as knowing that B's motion
>>>>>>>> will have also slowed B's clock. So matching of clocks on
>>>>>>>> re-meeting is to be totally expected by A (and B) - no paradox.
>>>>>>>> This is all about perceptions from different perspectives, and
>>>>>>>> the assertion in Relativity that all such perceptions are
>>>>>>>> equally valid/true.
>>>>>>>> With regard to assessing time and distance of B, as assessed by
>>>>>>>> A: whilst not relevant to this analysis, the question has
>>>>>>>> arisen - so let's look at it from A's perspective. A sends out
>>>>>>>> a broadcast radio signal in the general direction of B; on
>>>>>>>> receiving that signal, B sends a time-stamped response
>>>>>>>> (broadcast in A's general direction); From the time between
>>>>>>>> sending and receipt, 'knowing' such signals to travel both ways
>>>>>>>> at c relative to him/herself (according to SR), A can calculate
>>>>>>>> the distance to B at the time B responded - which will be
>>>>>>>> halfway between send and received, from A's perspective; A will
>>>>>>>> also have a record of B's clock-time at that point halfway
>>>>>>>> between A's send and receive - and so an indication of how B's
>>>>>>>> time is progressing compared with A's [This is all according to
>>>>>>>> SR 'rules', I'm not proposing that A's assessments will in fact
>>>>>>>> be correct in absolute terms - though of course SR considers
>>>>>>>> them to be equally correct to any other view].
>>>>>>>> Having glanced briefly at Wolf's latest response, I'd just say
>>>>>>>> that mass-energy considerations can also be very misleading in
>>>>>>>> a Relativistic scenario, unless handled exceedingly carefully
>>>>>>>> with full regard for different perspectives. As a very simple
>>>>>>>> illustration: A single photon observed from one reference
>>>>>>>> frame may be red- or blue-shifted when observed from a
>>>>>>>> different frame, and so carry different energy. Extension of
>>>>>>>> this to massive energetic particles, and applying mass-energy
>>>>>>>> equivalence, makes it clear that we can't simply assess the
>>>>>>>> mass-energy characteristics of an object or system from one
>>>>>>>> frame then simply carry those measures across to another
>>>>>>>> frame. I don't know whether this has a bearing on Wolf's
>>>>>>>> comments, I didn't get to see much of what you sent previously,
>>>>>>>> Wolf, for some reason.
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Grahame
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 28, 2017 4:21 PM
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Grahame,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sorry, but I find a very fundamental error in your
>>>>>>>> arguments: You describe a pair of twins which observe each
>>>>>>>> other in a situation where they are permanently
>>>>>>>> accelerated. And then you argue with dilation caused by
>>>>>>>> gravity. But that does not fit the physical reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gravity and acceleration are different regarding dilation.
>>>>>>>> Gravity causes dilation, no question. But acceleration does
>>>>>>>> not cause dilation. How can one know? 1) You find this in
>>>>>>>> every textbook about special relativity; 2) it was
>>>>>>>> experimentally proven in the Muon storage ring at CERN. The
>>>>>>>> extension of the life time of the muons was only dependent
>>>>>>>> on the actual speed of the particles, not on the very
>>>>>>>> strong acceleration in the ring. If that would have been an
>>>>>>>> effect according to an equivalent gravitational field,
>>>>>>>> their lifetime would have to be extended by an additional
>>>>>>>> factor of roughly 1000 compared to the results observed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 27.08.2017 um 22:18 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Albrecht,
>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a couple of points.
>>>>>>>>> First, I agree completely that gravitation doesn't come
>>>>>>>>> under SR. However the concept of gravitation is essential
>>>>>>>>> to explanation of the 'twins going in opposite directions
>>>>>>>>> around a circle and meeting on the far side'
>>>>>>>>> (non-)paradox. [It may be that in your view this scenario
>>>>>>>>> cannot then be simply a playing-out of SR, it must be a GR
>>>>>>>>> issue?]
>>>>>>>>> Consider: Twin A and twin B each view themselves as being
>>>>>>>>> static, with the other twin tracing out a path that takes
>>>>>>>>> them away and then brings them back into proximity from a
>>>>>>>>> different direction, having formed a loop of some kind;
>>>>>>>>> however, from the point of view of an observer static with
>>>>>>>>> respect to the centre of a large circle, A and B have
>>>>>>>>> started together at some point on the perimeter of that
>>>>>>>>> circle and have each followed opposite halves of that
>>>>>>>>> circle to meet again on its other side. I.e. from the
>>>>>>>>> perspective of that observer the motions of A and B are
>>>>>>>>> symmetric, so their clocks (synchronised at the start)
>>>>>>>>> will still be synchronised when they meet again. [We're
>>>>>>>>> assuming here that this all takes place in deep space, far
>>>>>>>>> from any gravitational influences.]
>>>>>>>> None of the twins can view himself as being static, because
>>>>>>>> they are accelerated all the time and they will notice
>>>>>>>> that. So the laws of SR are not applicable for this process
>>>>>>>> in a simple way.
>>>>>>>>> From A's point of view, A has remained static and B has
>>>>>>>>> performed a large loop in space, finally coming back
>>>>>>>>> alongside A. According to SR, therefore, A will observe a
>>>>>>>>> slowing-down of B's clock and so will expect B's clock to
>>>>>>>>> have lost time, in real terms as measured in A's frame (if
>>>>>>>>> it were an inertial frame).
>>>>>>>> No, it is not an inertial frame.
>>>>>>>>> [We can deal with the issue of A reading B's clock whilst
>>>>>>>>> B is on the move by B digitally emitting their clock-time
>>>>>>>>> at intervals, to be received by A who will assess those
>>>>>>>>> transmissions on the basis of their crossing space at
>>>>>>>>> speed c across the distance that A measures B to be from
>>>>>>>>> him at times of transmission - this could be done fairly
>>>>>>>>> easily by A keeping a record of B's distance at all times
>>>>>>>>> as measured on A's clock.]
>>>>>>>> Also this is not possible. A can receive signals from B,
>>>>>>>> but he does not know the distance. According to SR this
>>>>>>>> distance is not clearly defined because the assessment of
>>>>>>>> any distance depends on the motion state of the observer.
>>>>>>>> Which speed will A assume for himself? He cannot assume to
>>>>>>>> be static as he notices to be accelerated.
>>>>>>>>> B will have a corresponding mirror-image experience of A's
>>>>>>>>> motion, and so will expect A to have lost time in real
>>>>>>>>> (B-frame) terms. This appears to suggest that both A and
>>>>>>>>> B would each expect the other's clock to have fallen
>>>>>>>>> behind their own - a paradox.
>>>>>>>> Also regarding time a similar problem like for distance is
>>>>>>>> applicable. When are signals in different frames
>>>>>>>> synchronised or when is time is running faster or slower?
>>>>>>>> For any observer in different frames the result of this
>>>>>>>> question may be different.
>>>>>>>>> However, our external observer will have seen A performing
>>>>>>>>> a circular course - so A will inevitably have experienced
>>>>>>>>> a 'G-force' of some kind (centripetal, from our observer's
>>>>>>>>> persective). Since A considers him/herself to be
>>>>>>>>> static, he/she MUST attribute this to some gravitational
>>>>>>>>> influence - indeed, from the SR/GR perspective there must
>>>>>>>>> indeed be a gravitational influence in A's frame, from the
>>>>>>>>> perspective of that frame; one just does not get G-force
>>>>>>>>> without either acceleration or gravitation. (Here, of
>>>>>>>>> course, Relativity begins to become unravelled, as A is
>>>>>>>>> far from any massive body that could give rise to a
>>>>>>>>> gravitational field - maybe they'll need to start
>>>>>>>>> inventing their own local 'dark matter'). Note that the
>>>>>>>>> scenario being considered - A and B traversing opposite
>>>>>>>>> sides of a circle - involves NO gravitational fields - BUT
>>>>>>>>> A and B would HAVE TO PRESUME the existence of such a
>>>>>>>>> field in their reference frame if they are to reconcile a
>>>>>>>>> force they're experiencing with their assumption that they
>>>>>>>>> are static (a totally valid assumption, in Relativity terms).
>>>>>>>> As said above, even if both, A and B, attribute the force
>>>>>>>> of acceleration to gravity, they are in error; and it does
>>>>>>>> anyway not help the situation. For your consideration they
>>>>>>>> need a gravitational field for dilation, but this does not
>>>>>>>> exist, and acceleration does not replace it.
>>>>>>>>> Resolution of this (apparent) paradox, as I said before,
>>>>>>>>> rests on A (and likewise B) considering themselves to have
>>>>>>>>> been subject to a gravitational field - and experiment
>>>>>>>>> shows us that gravitational fields slow time - so their
>>>>>>>>> own clock will have slowed as well as the others. So they
>>>>>>>>> will both expect their clocks to be synchronised on
>>>>>>>>> re-meeting.
>>>>>>>> That is anyway true also in the absence of dilation.
>>>>>>>>> As I say, this is where Relativity begins to become
>>>>>>>>> unravelled: A and B will either each have to acknowledge
>>>>>>>>> that they are NOT in fact static, or they will have to
>>>>>>>>> invent a convincing explanation for a gravitational effect
>>>>>>>>> in the absence of any 'ponderous mass' (to use Einstein's
>>>>>>>>> term). But given that, synchronisation of clocks is not
>>>>>>>>> an issue - as long as we allow A and B to each presume
>>>>>>>>> existence of a gravitational field in their frame (which,
>>>>>>>>> as you say, takes it into the sphere of GR).
>>>>>>>> Not applicable as mentioned above.
>>>>>>>>> Second point: in your case of the travelling-twin versus
>>>>>>>>> the stay-at-home twin, the traveller would again
>>>>>>>>> experience G-force, which they could if they wish regard
>>>>>>>>> as a gravitational effect (since under Relativity they are
>>>>>>>>> free to consider themselves as static). They would
>>>>>>>>> therefore expect their clock (including biological clock)
>>>>>>>>> to have slowed (Pound-Rebka again), and so know that they
>>>>>>>>> have actually been travelling more than one year in
>>>>>>>>> 'objective' terms - whatever that might mean in this context.
>>>>>>>> The twin travelling, B, cannot assume that he is static
>>>>>>>> because he has to notice his acceleration. And that is
>>>>>>>> different from gravity. And even if it could be identified
>>>>>>>> with gravity this would not solve the example which I have
>>>>>>>> given.
>>>>>>>>> But of course the reality is that slowing of time is NOT
>>>>>>>>> symmetric, it's a consequence of motion with respect to
>>>>>>>>> the unique objectively-static universal reference frame.
>>>>>>>>> Only when serious scientists start asking WHY Relativity
>>>>>>>>> does (or appears to do) what it does will we make any
>>>>>>>>> progress on this issue.
>>>>>>>> Which progress to you expect? There is no symmetry in the
>>>>>>>> case where twin B returns and so you cannot conclude
>>>>>>>> anything from symmetry.
>>>>>>>>> I think we're agreed on the key issues. Perhaps it's time
>>>>>>>>> to stop discussing how a self-consistent mathematical
>>>>>>>>> system (which doesn't happen to match true reality) copes
>>>>>>>>> with paradoxes of its own making!
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Grahame
>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned in the other mail: It is in conflict
>>>>>>>> with Einstein's relativity to compare clocks residing in
>>>>>>>> different frames. The result of any comparison depends on
>>>>>>>> the motion state of the observer. That is what Einstein says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the other solution is to follow the Lorentzian
>>>>>>>> relativity. In that case the imagination becomes easy (in
>>>>>>>> contrast to Einstein).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greetings back
>>>>>>>> Albrecht.
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:* Albrecht Giese <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>>>>>>>> *To:* general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, August 27, 2017 7:48 PM
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [General] [NEW] SRT twin Paradox
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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 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>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
---
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/20170916/bb5cddb9/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list