The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 30 Nov 2007 04:36 colp <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in news:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one > coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other > coordinate systems. An example of the is clock synchronisation for GPS > sattelites. > But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent' under certain sets of circumstances. Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'. The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither remarkable nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity. It is only indicative of a lack of understanding. I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole. The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than the pole. Paradox? Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light traveling in 'straight lines'. Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? Only to those ignorant of the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through time-space. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: paparios on 30 Nov 2007 13:03 On 30 nov, 06:36, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one > > coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other > > coordinate systems. An example of the is clock synchronisation for GPS > > sattelites. > > But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent' under > certain sets of circumstances. > > Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the > logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'. > > The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither remarkable > nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity. > > It is only indicative of a lack of understanding. > > I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole. > The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than the > pole. > > Paradox? > > Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light traveling > in 'straight lines'. > > Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? Only to those ignorant of > the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through > time-space. > > -- > bz > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap While totally agreeing with your comments, I would also indicate that, in many cases, those misunderstandings of SR and/or GR are mostly due to poor or incomplete explanations from people who are assumed to know the stuff. For instance, when we say that time dilation or length compression is seen from the point of view of an observer at rest (a kind of perspective "illusion"), the logical question arises to whether this view is or not "real" for the moving observer, thus producing more confusion. Indeed, we add more confusion by indicating that the moving observer will see nothing of this during the trip (he will not notice this time dilation or length compression on himself). Of course, the traveling twin (in my example going at v=0.6c) is watching his surroundings and when he reaches his destination (for instance a star at 6 light years) he will notice less time has passed than the one calculated according to the rocket speed (8 years according to his clock instead of 10 years) and so verifying the time dilation experienced. So regarding the twin paradox, while indicating that there is no paradox at all, we should emphasize that the final result is as real as it gets, and so the traveling twin is really younger than his brother when he returns to Earth, the strange result not being just a matter of perspective or geometry. Regards Miguel Rios
From: Sue... on 30 Nov 2007 13:43 On Nov 30, 1:03 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > So regarding the twin paradox, while indicating that there is no > paradox at all, we should emphasize that the final result is as real > as it gets, and so the traveling twin is really younger than his > brother when he returns to Earth, the strange result not being just a > matter of perspective or geometry. Then you are saying the principle of relativity is false and Newton's inertial ether exit. Somehow I don't think that is what Einstein had in mind. Sue... > > Regards > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: colp on 30 Nov 2007 16:04 On Dec 1, 7:03 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So regarding the twin paradox, while indicating that there is no > paradox at all, we should emphasize that the final result is as real > as it gets, and so the traveling twin is really younger than his > brother when he returns to Earth, the strange result not being just a > matter of perspective or geometry. The problem here is that two apparent paradoxes are associated with the example. The first one is that the ages of the the twins differ. This is not a true paradox because time dilation due to relativistic travel with respect to Earth is experimentally evident. The second paradox is that the situation can be reversed and the Earth- bound twin can be considered to be be travelling twin with respect to the twin who is in the rocket. The standard explanation is that the twin in the rocket undergoes acceleration and this explains the lack of symmetry of the ages of the twins. The problem with this explanation is that the time dilation effects are calculated from the time spent in inertial frames, not the time spent accelerating/ decelerating. According to some commentators an accelerating frame of reference can be considered to be the same as a stationary frame of reference in a gravitational field. These effects are descibed by GR, yet the consensus of this thread has been than GR is not necessary to resolve the paradox. So the question that remains is: when does the travelling twin of the classic example observe that time has compressed for the Earth-bound twin in order that his observations agree with those of the Earth- bound twin at the end of the experiment?
From: colp on 30 Nov 2007 16:25
On Nov 30, 10:36 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote innews:0d8d2519-d996-4397-8506-5fa467cc2aa2(a)i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > That nonsense is the paradox that I am talking about. Facts from one > > coordinate system do get mixed and matched with facts from other > > coordinate systems. An example of the is clock synchronisation for GPS > > sattelites. > > But the logic and the math are only required to 'appear consistent' under > certain sets of circumstances. I assume that you mean from within a single inertial frame of reference. An observer can move between inertial frames, and the logic and math must apply equally in one frame as is does in another. > > Your apparent paradox VIOLATES the set of circumstances under which the > logic and math are 'required to appear consistent'. Reality does not require that observations only be made from a particular set of circumstances. > > The fact that things do not appear consistent is thus neither remarkable > nor odd nor indicative of a problem in relativity. It is a problem for relativity because relativity is supposed to describe what happens in reality. > > It is only indicative of a lack of understanding. > > I am 50 miles from a mountain. I am 1/4 mile from a telephone pole. > The pole looks taller than the mountain. The mountain is taller than the > pole. > > Paradox? Apparently. But if I travel to the mountain (by changing my frame of reference) I notice that the poles appear to get smaller compared to the mountain and I become aware of perspective effects. > > Only to those ignorant of perspective, which is based upon light traveling > in 'straight lines'. > > Are the 'relativity examples' real paradoxes? If only delta t = gamma delta t0 is applied to the paradox in the OP then the paradox is real because gamma is always greater than one. > Only to those ignorant of > the temporal perspective views presented by relativistic motion through > time-space. So what is it that you think that I am ignorant of? I am told that I can't 'mix and match' observations which are made from different inertial frames of reference. Yet reality does not limit observers from changing frames and making conclusions based on their observations. |