The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: kenseto on 24 Nov 2007 17:19 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:45e50819-65f6-46a3-a821-5c3698dd146a(a)p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 21, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:06b84031-18aa-4644-bfb7-43f49f46ae6a(a)i37g2000hsd.googlegroups.co m... > > > This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this > > > expirement both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in > > > opposite directions. > > > > > Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric, > > > they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth. > > > > > In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each > > > other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that > > > their clocks tell the same time. > > > > > Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's > > > clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow > > > for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast. > > > > No, special relativity says much more precise than that > > "moving clocks" are running slow. > > The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform is more precise that my description, > but that doesn't mean that my description is wrong. > > > > > It says something about intertial observers who measure > > times between ticks on remote, moving clocks. > > > > When your two clocks fly apart, each clock will measure > > this time to be longer and conclude that the other clock > > is "running slower". > > While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each > > tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B > > with a smaller time value. > > While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each > > tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A > > with a smaller time value. > > Yes, that is the standard theory. > > > > > After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to > > another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each > > tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B > > with a larger time value. > > After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to > > another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each > > tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A > > with a larger time value. > > Wrong. The other clock tick is still observed to have a smaller time > value. > This is because in the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform the relative > velocity term is squared, making the the issue of the clocks > separating vs the clocks approaching irrelevant to the amount of time > dilation. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation SR has no answer to your thought experiment. The reason is precisely as you described. However, IRT can explain your thought experiments as follows: 1. Before the twins are accelerated away they are in the same state of absolute motion. Therefore their clocks are running at the same rate. 2. After the twins accelerated away they changed their state of absolute motion compared to before they were accelerated. However, they remain in the same state of absolute motion because they accelerated identically. Therefore their clock rates remain the same. 3. After the turn around they maintain the same state of absolute motion because they turn around identically. Therefore their clock rates remain the same. 4. After decelerated they maintain the same state of absolute motion because they decelerated identically. Therefore their clock rates remain the same after they are reunited. The above explanation is incorporated into a new theory of relativity called IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. Also IRT has an unlimited domain of applicability. Therefore it is valid for use to replace GRT in cosmology applications. IRT is described in a paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity" in my website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto
From: colp on 24 Nov 2007 18:13 On Nov 25, 5:17 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:09a47d39-3f20-4b0b-a7bc-b168ea09a0c4(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > .... > > > > > Considering that you have not denied that you made an error in the > > opening post when you implied that observed time compression occurred > > on the return leg, I will take your comment as a compliment. > > Dirk did NOT make a mistake [as I have been trying to show you], I suggest > you let it go. With respect to the thought experiment described in the opening post, which of the following statements are true? 1. While clock A is coasting, according to clock A, each tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B with a smaller time value. 2. While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A with a smaller time value. 3. After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to another inertial frame, in which according to clock A, each tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B with a larger time value. 4. After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A with a larger time value. 5. Statements 1 and 2 describe time dilation. 6. Statements 3 and 4 describe time compression. 7. SR does not describe time compression for inertial frames.
From: colp on 24 Nov 2007 18:23 On Nov 25, 5:54 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > >The point is that a paradox exists due to the time dilation expected > >by SR. > > No, there is no paradox in the sense of contradiction. The contradiction between SR prediction ant reality is described below: This thought experiment is like the classic twin paradox, but in this experiment both twins leave earth and travel symmetric return trips in opposite directions. Since the paths taken by the twins in this experiment are symmetric, they must be the same age when they meet on their return to earth. In this experiment the twins maintain constant observation of each other's clocks, from when they depart until they return and find that their clocks tell the same time. Special relativity says that each twin must observe that the other's clock is running slow, and at no time does special relativity allow for an observation which shows that the other clock is running fast. The paradox is that special relativity says that a twin will never see the other twin's clock catch up, but the clocks must show the same time at the end of the experiment because of symmetry.
From: colp on 24 Nov 2007 18:25 On Nov 25, 5:50 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > >On Nov 25, 3:57 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> If the theory of relativity is wrong, then > >> there are two simple ways to demonstrate that > >> it is wrong: (1) Show that it makes predictions > >> that are contradictory, or (2) Show that it makes > >> predictions that are proved false by experiment. > > >In this thread I have pursued the first option. > > No, you haven't. As I said, you have to look at > what relativity *actually* predicts, not your > own distorted version of relativity. What do you think the difference is between my version of relativity and your version of relativity?
From: AltSci on 24 Nov 2007 21:00
> While clock B is coasting, according to clock B, each > tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A > with a smaller time value. Not quite understand the term "coasting". > After clock A has made its turnaround, it has shifted to > another inertial frame, (!!!) Impossible! Each coordinate system is from -inf. to +inf. in time. Whole experiment should be described in a choosen coordinate system in its entirety! in which according to clock A, each > tick on clock A is simultaneous with some tick on clock B > with a larger time value. > After clock B has made its turnaround, it has shifted to > another inertial frame, in which according to clock B, each > tick on clock B is simultaneous with some tick on clock A > with a larger time value. > > > > > The paradox is that special relativity says that a twin will never see > > the other twin's clock catch up, but the clocks must show the same > > time at the end of the experiment because of symmetry. > > When they finally meet, for both clocks, this larger time reading of > the simultaneous events on the other clock is compensated by the > "more slowly running time" on that clock such that they read the > same time when they are reunited. > > Dirk Vdm > [copy and follow-up to sci.physics.relativity] |