The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 17:39 On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: > > <snip> > >> Hello Dirk > > >> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the > >> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be > >> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! > > >> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? > > > A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well, > > since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to > > accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve > > the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased > > arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this thread.
From: Cosmik de Bris on 22 Nov 2007 17:44 colp wrote: > On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >>> On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: >>> <snip> >>>> Hello Dirk >>>> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the >>>> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be >>>> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! >>>> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? >>> A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well, >>> since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to >>> accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve >>> the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased >>> arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames. >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox >> > > Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought > experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment > descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this > thread. Nothing is ever perfectly symmetrical, how far out of symmetrical does something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical? Nothing magical happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 18:17 On Nov 23, 9:53 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in messagenews:d2abe6c6-f3ca-4082-89f9-40c64df6ef3b(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 23, 6:07 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)ThankS-NO- > > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> See my reply to colp. > > > The "other there!" response to a request for an argument is an > > indictation that no argument exists. Special relativity says that both > > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is > > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus > > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. > > I don't understand what you mean with > "The "other there!" response." It is a behaviour which is apparent in some arguments. It involves making a vague reference to another argument which supposedly supports the position of the poster. > > I also have not seen > "a request for an argument". By an argument I mean logical reasoning or statements of fact which support your position, which is apparently that SR is a workable theory. The request was in the context that you snipped: "Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ?" > > I agree that > "Special relativity says that both clocks are observed to run > slower than each other" > But "when the clocks are in the same frame of reference", they > don't move with respect to each other, so they are also not > "observed to run slower than each other". Yes. The problem is that the observation of a slow clock is incompatible with the observation of the clocks telling the same time when they are in the same frame of reference at the end of the experiment. From the frame of referenece of a single twin, the other twin's clock must be observed to both slow down as prescribed by SR, and then be observed to speed up again so that the same times are observed at the end of the experiment. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms at the heart of SR describe observed clock slowing, but they do not describe observed clock speedups. > > Have you tried drawing that diagram? There's not much point unless we can both see the diagram and talk about what it represents. That would involve getting the diagram onto the internet, which is more work that I am willing to contemplate right now.
From: Bryan Olson on 22 Nov 2007 19:20 colp wrote: > Special relativity says that both > clocks are observed to run slower than each other, and this is > impossible when the clocks are in the same frame of reference. Thus > the only logical conclusion is that special relativity is wrong. You've gotten several good explanations of where your reasoning on what relativity predicts went wrong: it's all about the turn-around when the twins are far apart. More generally, thought experiment alone cannot refute relativity. Lots of people who know lots of math have gone over the theory. Whether or not it describes how the universe works, challenging its self-consistency is futile. When my own trials of thought experiments yield conflicting outcomes, as they often do, I have to ask myself: Did I just refute the work of all those scientists and mathematicians, or did I think I knew more than I did? Turns out one of those possibilities is quite a bit more likely than the other. -- --Bryan
From: colp on 22 Nov 2007 19:37
On Nov 23, 11:44 am, Cosmik de Bris <cosmik.deb...(a)elec.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > colp wrote: > > On Nov 23, 3:18 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...(a)epfl.ch> > > wrote: > >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message > > >>news:43e6b051-fef5-444c-a97c-2f5500b8ca1e(a)b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >>> On Nov 22, 5:48 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...(a)arcor.de> wrote: > >>> <snip> > >>>> Hello Dirk > >>>> If you could mathematically demonstrate that the time delays of the > >>>> symmetric clock A as viewed by B can be > >>>> compensated somehow you have solved the paradox ! > >>>> Would you tell us idiots how this runs in SR ? > >>> A solution could include an argument from general relativity as well, > >>> since the twins must spend time in non-inertial frames in order to > >>> accelearate/decelerate and turn around. I don't think it would solve > >>> the paradox though because the dilation effects can be increased > >>> arbitrarily by extending the amount of time spent in inertial frames. > >>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_... > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > > Those arguments depend on the asymmetry of the original thought > > experiment. Since asymmetry is absent in the thought experiment > > descriped in the OP, they do not solve the paradox described in this > > thread. > > Nothing is ever perfectly symmetrical, A circle is perfectly symmetrical. > how far out of symmetrical does > something have to be before it becomes asymmetrical? A finite distance. > Nothing magical > happens when the thought experiment becomes symmetrical, how can it? The paradox of the symmetric twins does not depend on magic. The paradox depends of the fact that (according to SR) a twin will observe the other clock slowing down and never observe it speeding up, and yet it must tell the same time as his own clock at the end of the experiment. |