The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 24 Nov 2007 23:19 On Nov 25, 3:00 pm, AltSci <yur...(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > > 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". It means travelling in an inertial frame of reference. > > > 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! What should happen and what does happen are often quite different things. Comparing expected clock ticks (according to SR) with sent clock ticks makes the paradox a bit harder to avoid.
From: Sue... on 25 Nov 2007 01:37 On Nov 24, 6:23 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > 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. I won't dispute you have stated one of many refutations of what I call the "parlor trick" interpretation of SR. It is just as absurd as the "missing dollar paradox" and shares some of the same accounting errors. In fairness, to the author, and the physics community we can't evaluate what people *think* the theory says. We have to look at what the theory really says and try to understand because its concepts are useful and widely accepted. << As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html That is a doppler shifted receeding clock and it is all that is required to formulate time dependent Maxwell's equation which allow for the finite speed of light, without conflict with the principle of relativity. -Retarded Potentials- (510) << if we want to work out the potentials at position r and time t then we have to perform integrals of the charge density and current density over all space (just like in the steady-state situation). However, when we calculate the contribution of charges and currents at position r' to these integrals we do not use the values at time t' , instead we use the values at some earlier time, t - |r - r'|/c What is this earlier time? It is simply the latest time at which a light signal emitted from position r would be received at position r' before time t. This is called the retarded time. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html The closing situation which you correctly observe to be absent in Einstein's paragraph above, is of questionable use anyway. -Advanced Potentials- << It should be pointed out that the Feynman-Wheeler model runs into trouble when one tries to combine electromagnetism with quantum mechanics. These difficulties have yet to be resolved, so at present the status of this model is that it is ``an interesting idea,'' but it is still not fully accepted into the canon of physics. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html So if you want to say you have shown error in one of many interpretations of SR, you have plenty of company in high places. But don't expect physicists, as a result of your *discovery* to reconsider over 100 years of work and remove gamma factors where they correctly allow for the finite speed of light. Sue...
From: colp on 25 Nov 2007 02:21 On Nov 25, 7:37 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Nov 24, 6:23 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I won't dispute you have stated one of many refutations of > what I call the "parlor trick" interpretation of SR. It is > just as absurd as the "missing dollar paradox" and shares > some of the same accounting errors. > > In fairness, to the author, and the physics community > we can't evaluate what people *think* the theory says. The usual interpretation defines how the theory affects the way that people think about reality. We may interpret the first postulate in a way which solves the paradox, but in general the theory is interpreted in the context of the Michelson-Morely experiment as meaning that there is no preferred frame of reference regarding underlying mechanisms. This interpretation does not give us a useful model of reality is some cases. > > We have to look at what the theory really says and > try to understand because its concepts are useful and > widely accepted. IMO the key here is understanding the scope of the theory. Rather than assuming universal scope we should be able to say when the theory is useful and when it is not. When patterns in the scope become apparent it may lead us to formulate an alternative theory in which the rules of applicability are more elegant.
From: Sue... on 25 Nov 2007 02:54 On Nov 25, 2:21 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Nov 25, 7:37 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 6:23 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I won't dispute you have stated one of many refutations of > > what I call the "parlor trick" interpretation of SR. It is > > just as absurd as the "missing dollar paradox" and shares > > some of the same accounting errors. > > > In fairness, to the author, and the physics community > > we can't evaluate what people *think* the theory says. > > The usual interpretation defines how the theory affects the way that > people think about reality. I'll bet it is required reading for any student of psychology. I wouldn't know. Those folks give me the creeps with their rats and scalp probes and cruelty to Pavlov's dog. :o) > We may interpret the first postulate in a > way which solves the paradox, but in general the theory is interpreted > in the context of the Michelson-Morely experiment as meaning that > there is no preferred frame of reference regarding underlying > mechanisms. This interpretation does not give us a useful model of > reality is some cases. > In that respect it IS helpful to use a bit of psychology because you have to consider the prevailing views of the inteneded audience at the time of writing, about how mass and energy moves through space. You don't however need to share those view some 100 years later. > > > > We have to look at what the theory really says and > > try to understand because its concepts are useful and > > widely accepted. > > IMO the key here is understanding the scope of the theory. Rather than > assuming universal scope we should be able to say when the theory is > useful and when it is not. When patterns in the scope become apparent > it may lead us to formulate an alternative theory in which the rules > of applicability are more elegant. In it most basic form it is little more than Pythagoras relation on steriods. Have you considered disproving a^2 + b^@ = c^2 ? <rhetorical> Of course not. The thing to question in most applications is whether a theorist has made a translation between a spatial interval and a temporal interval. We know they are not the same, but we can simplify many calculations by assuming that they are, for a limited puroose. Most noteably in this context: << It is to be found rather in the fact of his recognition that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. 1 In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. Formally, these four co-ordinates correspond exactly to the three space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html "Space-time" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html Sue... > colp
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 25 Nov 2007 06:28
"colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:a1a62fff-f7c6-4b8c-8e57-ac05b3f817d4(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 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? The problem is that you are a retard, and, by definition, nobody can help a retard understand his own condition. Don't insist - Daryl cannot help you. Dirk Vdm |