The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 19:00 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:d2c644f8-d03d-4981-965c-209373bde054(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> > [...] >> >> >> And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate >> >> you believe time is absolute. >> >> > Can you convince me it is not? >> >> > Assume clocks do not slow with motion. >> > Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space. >> > Assume this statement is true: >> >> > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate >> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic >> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, >> > but no transformation mixes them with the >> > gravitational field. >> >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html >> >> > What causality violating scenario can you devise >> > to show PoR conflicts with a constant >> > speed of light in the dielectric of free space? >> >> > I constantly see it refered to, but I can't >> > imagine what it is. >> >> Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR >> imply that: > > Bz sez: > "events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] > seen > as simultaneous in other iFoRs." > > Sue... sez: > "events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen > as simultaneous in other FoRs." > > There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling > to light so I removed the "i" from FoR. an inertial frame of reference is one that maintains a constant velocity [no inertia required]. It is ALSO a frame of reference in which the laws of physics [including those involving newtons laws of physics which includes inertia and Maxwell's equations] hold. [no inertia is required]. The use of the word inertia is just shorthand for 'all laws of physics are good'. Again, you seem to get hung up on some words starting with 'i'. You have overextended and generalized both 'imaginary' and 'inertia' in a way similar to how KS has overextended and is hung up on 'absolute' and 'define'. > > >> >> This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks collocated >> with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that every point in >> the iFoR can have its own clock and all are synchronized within that >> iFoR. > > When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of > time skew and reordering are expected. Yep. But even with synchronized clocks at the locations AND no propagation delays, the effects are still there [according to the math, and according to experimental data]. > > Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand > we use funny clocks? It doesn't. Only you have decided that there is inertia or funny clocks involved. Anything in the (constant velocity)FoR is included, including ALL clocks. Nothing funny and nothing special about inertia. -- 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: Sue... on 3 Dec 2007 19:30 On Dec 3, 7:00 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:d2c644f8-d03d-4981-965c-209373bde054(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > >> : > > >> > On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> > [...] > > >> >> And it is in line with other statements you have made that indicate > >> >> you believe time is absolute. > > >> > Can you convince me it is not? > > >> > Assume clocks do not slow with motion. > >> > Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space. > >> > Assume this statement is true: > > >> > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > >> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic > >> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > >> > but no transformation mixes them with the > >> > gravitational field. >> > >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > >> > What causality violating scenario can you devise > >> > to show PoR conflicts with a constant > >> > speed of light in the dielectric of free space? > > >> > I constantly see it refered to, but I can't > >> > imagine what it is. > > >> Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR > >> imply that: > > > Bz sez: > > "events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] > > seen > > as simultaneous in other iFoRs." > > > Sue... sez: > > "events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen > > as simultaneous in other FoRs." > > > There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling > > to light so I removed the "i" from FoR. > > an inertial frame of reference is one that maintains a constant velocity > [no inertia required]. It is ALSO a frame of reference in which the laws > of physics [including those involving newtons laws of physics which > includes inertia and Maxwell's equations] hold. [no inertia is required]. > The use of the word inertia is just shorthand for 'all laws of physics are > good'. Again, you seem to get hung up on some words starting with 'i'. > You have overextended and generalized both 'imaginary' and 'inertia' in a > way similar to how KS has overextended and is hung up on 'absolute' and > 'define'. OK... we don't know any of those things just because two events appear simultaneous to an observer so the more general FoR would apply. > > > > >> This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks collocated > >> with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that every point in > >> the iFoR can have its own clock and all are synchronized within that > >> iFoR. > > > When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of > > time skew and reordering are expected. > > Yep. But even with synchronized clocks at the locations AND no propagation > delays, the effects are still there [according to the math, and according > to experimental data]. I don't know what effects you refer to. > > > > > Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand > > we use funny clocks? > > It doesn't. > Only you have decided that there is inertia or funny clocks involved. > > Anything in the (constant velocity)FoR is included, including ALL clocks. > Nothing funny and nothing special about inertia. We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? Sue... > > -- > bz
From: bz on 3 Dec 2007 23:22 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:2ae29fd0-6c31-4deb-b1e4-832914006444(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 3, 7:00 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:d2c644f8-d03d-4981-965c-209373bde054(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> >> innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups. >> >> com >> >> : >> >> >> > On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> And it is in line with other statements you have made that >> >> >> indicate you believe time is absolute. >> >> >> > Can you convince me it is not? >> >> >> > Assume clocks do not slow with motion. >> >> > Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space. >> >> > Assume this statement is true: >> >> >> > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate >> >> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic >> >> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, >> >> > but no transformation mixes them with the >> >> > gravitational field. >> >> >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html >> >> >> > What causality violating scenario can you devise >> >> > to show PoR conflicts with a constant >> >> > speed of light in the dielectric of free space? >> >> >> > I constantly see it refered to, but I can't >> >> > imagine what it is. >> >> >> Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR >> >> imply that: >> >> > Bz sez: >> > "events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] >> > seen >> > as simultaneous in other iFoRs." >> >> > Sue... sez: >> > "events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen >> > as simultaneous in other FoRs." >> >> > There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling >> > to light so I removed the "i" from FoR. >> >> an inertial frame of reference is one that maintains a constant >> velocity [no inertia required]. It is ALSO a frame of reference in >> which the laws of physics [including those involving newtons laws of >> physics which includes inertia and Maxwell's equations] hold. [no >> inertia is required]. The use of the word inertia is just shorthand for >> 'all laws of physics are good'. Again, you seem to get hung up on some >> words starting with 'i'. You have overextended and generalized both >> 'imaginary' and 'inertia' in a way similar to how KS has overextended >> and is hung up on 'absolute' and 'define'. > > OK... we don't know any of those things just because two events > appear simultaneous to an observer so the more general FoR would > apply. The 'more general FoR' would negate the 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply'. That is if by 'more general' you mean what you seemed to mean when you removed the 'i' from iFoR. Once you negate those laws of physics, you can make duck soup out of old cigarette butts. But I won't be eating your duck soup. On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference wherein 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according to SR and GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in relation to any given iFoR. >> >> This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks >> >> collocated with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that >> >> every point in the iFoR can have its own clock and all are >> >> synchronized within that iFoR. >> >> > When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of >> > time skew and reordering are expected. >> >> Yep. But even with synchronized clocks at the locations AND no >> propagation delays, the effects are still there [according to the math, >> and according to experimental data]. > > I don't know what effects you refer to. Yes, I think you do. The effects that give the Delta t for the traveling twin which is different from the delta t for the stay at home twin. The effects that make the beard grey on the stay at home twin while her traveling brother has a dark beard. The effects that make the traveling twin's time-o-meter show a lower reading and his distance-o-meter read more than the stay at home twin. The effects that the Lorentz-Einstein time transform equation predict. The effects that the GPS satellites are consistent with. The effects that muons in motion are consistent with. The effects that Sue deny. >> > Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand >> > we use funny clocks? >> >> It doesn't. >> Only you have decided that there is inertia or funny clocks involved. >> >> Anything in the (constant velocity)FoR is included, including ALL >> clocks. Nothing funny and nothing special about inertia. > > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? I never claimed a violation. You are the one that keeps bringing up violations. You quote Einstein and then ask 'have you stopped beating your wife' types of questions about what you quoted. You violate the sanctity of logic and science. -- 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: Sue... on 4 Dec 2007 02:15 On Dec 3, 11:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:2ae29fd0-6c31-4deb-b1e4-832914006444(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 3, 7:00 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> innews:d2c644f8-d03d-4981-965c-209373bde054(a)l16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > >> : > > >> > On Dec 3, 5:40 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote > >> >> innews:03298fd9-6aee-47ca-8e56-c085e529b0fa(a)w56g2000hsf.googlegroups. > >> >> com > >> >> : > > >> >> > On Dec 3, 3:31 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> > [...] > > >> >> >> And it is in line with other statements you have made that > >> >> >> indicate you believe time is absolute. > > >> >> > Can you convince me it is not? > > >> >> > Assume clocks do not slow with motion. > >> >> > Assume light is a wave propagating in dielectric of free-space. > >> >> > Assume this statement is true: > > >> >> > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > >> >> > transformation will convert electric or magnetic > >> >> > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > >> >> > but no transformation mixes them with the > >> >> > gravitational field. >> > >> >> >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > >> >> > What causality violating scenario can you devise > >> >> > to show PoR conflicts with a constant > >> >> > speed of light in the dielectric of free space? > > >> >> > I constantly see it refered to, but I can't > >> >> > imagine what it is. > > >> >> Constant speed of light in the dielectric for free space and the PoR > >> >> imply that: > > >> > Bz sez: > >> > "events that appear simultaneous in one iFoR are NOT [in general] > >> > seen > >> > as simultaneous in other iFoRs." > > >> > Sue... sez: > >> > "events that appear simultaneous in one FoR are NOT [in general] seen > >> > as simultaneous in other FoRs." > > >> > There was an assumption that inerta/gravity has no coupling > >> > to light so I removed the "i" from FoR. > > >> an inertial frame of reference is one that maintains a constant > >> velocity [no inertia required]. It is ALSO a frame of reference in > >> which the laws of physics [including those involving newtons laws of > >> physics which includes inertia and Maxwell's equations] hold. [no > >> inertia is required]. The use of the word inertia is just shorthand for > >> 'all laws of physics are good'. Again, you seem to get hung up on some > >> words starting with 'i'. You have overextended and generalized both > >> 'imaginary' and 'inertia' in a way similar to how KS has overextended > >> and is hung up on 'absolute' and 'define'. > > > OK... we don't know any of those things just because two events > > appear simultaneous to an observer so the more general FoR would > > apply. > > The 'more general FoR' would negate the 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of > physics apply'. Even Newton was troubled that a gravitating body shouldn't act instantly over a distance. Retarded solutions work fine. Time dependent Maxwell's equation allow for the finite speed of light in the nearfield and they work just fine. Your statement seems unfounded. BTW time dependent Maxwell equations may have been unknown to Einstein in 1905. << Hermann von HELMHOLTZ 1821-1894 >> http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html > That is if by 'more general' you mean what you seemed to > mean when you removed the 'i' from iFoR. Once you negate those laws of > physics, you can make duck soup out of old cigarette butts. But I won't be > eating your duck soup. Well Einstein ate it ~1918 because the 1920 paper makes inertial coupling through mass/energy equivalence and the Lorenz gauge is conditioned with the imaginary operator. - > > On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference wherein > 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according to SR and > GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in relation to any > given iFoR. Not true. << The solution to this equation is the instantaneous Coulomb potential associated with the charge density, which appears at first glance to violate causality, since motions of electric charge appear everywhere instantaneously as changes to the Coulomb potential. This is generally explained by pointing out that the scalar and vector potentials themselves do not affect the motions of charges, only the combinations of their derivatives that form the electromagnetic field strength. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_fixing -Jackson http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034 > > >> >> This, of course, involves light, but is true even if clocks > >> >> collocated with the event are used. Of course we are assuming that > >> >> every point in the iFoR can have its own clock and all are > >> >> synchronized within that iFoR. > > >> > When light propagates on paths of different length all kinds of > >> > time skew and reordering are expected. > > >> Yep. But even with synchronized clocks at the locations AND no > >> propagation delays, the effects are still there [according to the math, > >> and according to experimental data]. > << I don't know what effects you refer to. >> > Yes, I think you do. The effects that give the Delta t for the traveling > twin which is different from the delta t for the stay at home twin. The > effects that make the beard grey on the stay at home twin while her > traveling brother has a dark beard. The effects that make the traveling > twin's time-o-meter show a lower reading and his distance-o-meter read > more than the stay at home twin. The effects that the Lorentz-Einstein > time transform equation predict. The effects that the GPS satellites are > consistent with. The effects that muons in motion are consistent with. > The effects that Sue deny. There aren't any twins involved in your illustration why we can't work in the Coulomb gauge. (IOW assume clocks are unaffected by motion) All of QM and most of QED is in the Coulomb gauge and the predictions have been remarkable. No funny clocks required. > > > >> > Why should this have some relation to inertia or demand > >> > we use funny clocks? > > >> It doesn't. > >> Only you have decided that there is inertia or funny clocks involved. > > >> Anything in the (constant velocity)FoR is included, including ALL > >> clocks. Nothing funny and nothing special about inertia. > > > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. > > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? > = > I never claimed a violation. Then you have no reason to insist that SR's postultes won't resolve *without* a Lorentz transform and clocks which slow with motion. > You are the one that keeps bringing up > violations. You quote Einstein and then ask 'have you stopped beating your > wife' types of questions about what you quoted. You violate the sanctity > of logic and science. I did not bring up the violation. I quote Einstein because *HE# brought up "The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity" http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html If it is only *Apparent* there is no justification to use the Lorenz gauge in the twin clock problem. We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? Sue... > > -- > bz >
From: Sue... on 4 Dec 2007 03:49
On Dec 3, 11:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: [...] > > On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference wherein > 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according to SR and > GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in relation to any > given iFoR. This is a thoughtful statement and worth considering in the context of Weinberg's statement. 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html Limiting the frames the way Einstein did is clever and expedient and even preserves *some* tolerance for light moving as a massive particle. But the need to consider adding the speed of light with the emitter demonstrates that is is more like duct tape on a leaky pipe. Modeling light as a disturbance in the free space dielectric would have been a better solution but was unlikley a concept Einstein would embrace considering the content of his Nobel winning paper. Sue... > -- > bz |