Standard SRT problem need a standard SRT solution.

I will try this post again. I made one, submitted it with no error messages, and it simply
disappeared. First of all, Yuriy has a good discussion of the Twin Paradox at his website. He agrees that the proposed solutions are not effective. Here is an excerpt
from a paper I posted reciently with a very good discussion of the twin papadox, given
by a faculty member at the Univ. of Tenn. Again, the proposed solutions are discussed.
"The kinetic and dynamic theories to resolve the clock paradox of the special theory of
relativity are critically reviewed. It has been shown that the argument based on asymmetry is
invalid and the signal-counting scheme is not the correct explanation of differential aging. The
clock paradox is restated in the symmetrical twin brothers (2-J) and quadruplet brothers (4-J)
experiments. These experiments show that the clock paradox is inherent in the Lorentz
transformation, or any transformation in which time is dependent on space coordinates and
velocity. The 4-J experiment also shows that the relativity of simultaneity may lead to a
paradox of occurrence. The around-the-world atomic clock experiment and the lifetime
measurements of high energy particles are scrutinized theoretically and methodologically."
http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/LingJun-Wang/Paradox.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ, you do realize that General Relativity is not a symmetric theory like SR,
don't you? For instance, in GR's non-inertial accelerating frames, clocks run
slow in the direction of acceleration and fast in the opposite direction. In GR,
you cannot assume the universe is racing past you while you are stationary.
Gr seems to be holding up pretty well in the latest research, albeit with
modifications. SR is not compatible with most guage theories or some forms
of modified GR, such as the non-metric forms in which Lorentz invarience is
violated. Despite naive claims to the contrary, SR is not used in most advanced physics of today. Astronomers and cosmologists will say that SR
is not applicable to the study of the universe at large, although some will
give it a bone and say that SR may be useful at 'local space' levels. Particle
physicist do not use SR, instead use The Standard Model which is based on
Quantum Mechanics. The Higgs field is a field (not an ether) that exists in
'empty' space with the Higgs boson as the mediating (force carrying) particle.
I am not sure if GR can accomodate all the changes necessary if the Higgs boson is found and verified, but it may be. GR is versatile enough for many changes, but the totally symmetric SR is not.
Oh, and by the way, NASA does not use relativity theory, they use Newtonian
Mechanics to land rovers on Mars, for instance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting post 2inq.

No I don't know much about GR at all, and maybe sometime in the future I'll venture to do so.

All I see is that there is no simple solution to the "twin paradox" yet it is IMO the most glaring question that faces any one who wishes to delve into SRT.

Because it relies on an inadequately defined space time issue to resolve it, it renders the whole of SRT suseptable to doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ,

Don't be so gulable to accept the simple minded quotations of SRT, etc.

Changing frames is a straw man's dodge of the issue.

For example you can accelerate B away from A for period with known rates and times calculated by relativity so that each local timer starts when the test velocity has been reached by B.

Then have simularily calibrated timers to start both clocks and him coast in an inertial relative velocity frame for an extended period. Once again preset times based on calculations by relativity of each local clock it is turned off after the agreed test period.

It really doesn't matter who's clock you calibrate the timers to as long as you maintain the relationship according to relativity. The start/stop of both clocks would be universally concurrent (I am not speaking of when they see each others clocks start/stop but when they start/stop.)

The simple minded among us claim that during such a relative velocity period both clocks run slow equally. Since these clocks do not run during the acceleration period their accumulated time is strickly a function of their local proper time based on relative velocity.

Once the clocks stop, B reverses thrust and returns home bringing his test clock (not running) home for comparison.

Guess what! His clock will be dilated in comparison to A's clock and has nothing to do with acceleration forces. That result defies the SRT claim of reciprocity.

If they argue that isn't the case then both clocks must display the same time and the only way of calling that reciprocity is to also claim "NO" relative velocity affects on clocks, since A never moved nor changed frames.

This issue becomes apparent if you also send another clock 'C' at a different acceleration and velocity but with like timers, such that A must now slow equally at two different rates to satisfy both moving clocks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We do not need to add the complexiety of my Three Clock Case and compare B with C, etc, since they can't even get past two clocks properly.

The falicy of relativity as advocated becomes apparent if you realize that if you are 10 light years from a star and are at rest relative to it and you acclerate to 0.866c over the period of one year, you are now supposedly only about 4.5 light years away (not integrating distance during the acceleration period). That is you have traversed 5.5 light years in just one year.

Yes clocks may dilate to 50% at 0.866c, etc, but the math does not balance the physical reality of the universal space in terms of d = vt. Such a traveler MUST see the distance to such a star decreasing at FTL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

and of course what you see is the effect of spacetime on the velocity of light so to say that the FTL is an illusion is to say that 'c' is also.

It's sort of wanting both the cake and wanting to eat it as well. Either light is a part of the space time picture or it isn't.
But this is not an arguement I care to get into as I feel there is no immediate solution to either position.....I tend to think that it is all badly premised in the first instance because as you well know I don't hold that light travels any way. So to me I am avoiding getting bogged down in this issue.

 

OK, 2inq, you are saying nobody gives a rat's ass about SRT/GRT, so what the fuck are we doing talking about it? Is this your sermon? what ye doth preach, oh minister?

Geistkiesel ​

 

So, QQ. You don't buy SRT either. c is not an illusion. Spacetime does not affect the speed of light. You are misinterpreting the result of the perceived "FTL" spaceship thing. There is no such thing as "universal space" only spacetime. All of these results fall from a few simple postulates, and have been proven time and time again. There are immediate solutions to all of these issues re SR and GR. What exactly don't you accept here?

You either want to learn some physics, or you don't. If you have your own theories, fine. Then why are you acting like you want physics help, then turn around and say 'yeah, well c is an illusion, light dosen't travel, it's badly premised...'

Modern SR and GR are precisely premised and supported by overwhelming evidence.

 

If you take a spin-1 particle in the generic S state and pass it through a Stern-Gerlach T segment volume and then exit the T segment, this is stated symbolically as S -> T -> S. This is to say physically, that the magnetic spin vector of the particle in the S state, 'up' wrt the lab, is changed to the orientation of the magnetic volume of the T segment. (The T segment is identical to any S segment but rotated around axis of particle travel.). The force of the T segment magnetic field maintains the T state of the particle for the duration of the segment transition time. When exiting the T segment the transition, T -> S occurs, in field free space, or when the field supporting the T state in the particle is zero.

The particles's magnetic spin vector returns to the "up" direction when leaving the perturbing field in the T segment. How are the forces generated that effectively guarantee the return to the S state? What are the critical unobserved elements of the observed state S that , said again, guarantee ther reformation of the observed state? The nonloclal force centers.

Spin =1 particles are either, x = +, +/- or - , when in the T segemnt (or any SG segment). Assuming the S state is a +S , in the +S -> xT -> +S transition. The xT state carries the information sufficient to generate the reorientation of +S state, the magnetic spin vector, in field free space. The particle saved enough energy (?)from the field to reset the magnetic spin vector, which is only a direction indicator. +S means "moving up' wrt the lab z-axis (floor to ceiling). S is the alignment of the particle magnetic spin vector, the + is the anchor deciding direction. This implies a complex field force interpreting capability for the particle.

Of the nonexpressed states , here +/- and -, these are not null states, they are nonlocal states that for whatever reason they are not observed (luck of tghe draw in the spin gernerating sequence) , are not expressed as observable and are functionally crucial in the spin state transition process.

In any event the spin 1 particle is an effective inertial platform, with perfect gyroscopic memory ability - like drift free gyroscopes - perfect physical returnability from perturbations from on/off magnetic fields/gradients. Think about them spinners.

Geistkiesel​

 

Mac, do you know SRT? One of the most obvious consequences of the postulate that c is constant (guess where the letter c came from) is that there is no such thing as simultaneity.
Imagine a truck with a light in the middle. Let's make the truck 600,000,000m long so that when you turn on the light, it takes one second for the light to hit either end. Remembering that c is constant, if the truck is moving forward, the light will have to travel farther to the front than to the back, so according to anyone who is not moving with the truck (moving backwards relative to the truck) the light hits the back before it hits the front.

See what I said above, the simultaneity is lost, so if they stop their clocks in such a way that the two read the same, then A will see that B stopped his clock after A did and vice versa. There is no possible way for them to compare readings in such a way that they can compare start and finish times accurately wthout one of them being accelerated.

What are you talking about? Relativity dictates that along with relative speed comes length contraction, including the length of the journey. So, if you are moving at .866c, the entire trip is only 5 light years long. In no referance frame did anything travel FTL. Observers at rest with the star will see that when you measure the remaining distance to be only 4.5 light years, they will see about 9 light years left (reverse length contraction) and because of time dilation, will see it having been more than a year.

 

Ah Sabejias, you have no idea what you're getting into here.

 

QQ, SL is closer than he realizes, but then that's SL for ya.

When you look at the problem and discuss tghe imposition of forces on the object what do you see? Forget symmetry for a sec, during acceleration forces of a myriad nature are imposed on the object accelerating. The mechanical perturbations to the clock timing circuits are many and varied.

Do not look at the acceleration phase in all this as a mere marker, or a comma in a sentence. Acceleration is where it all happens, unless you demand philosophical interventions also. The unuiform motion after acceleration is only a measure of the extent of acceleration.

But you are in the right direction. All, I mean 100% of objects accelerating wrt the embankment, Ve, do so withiout the Ve accelarating. I mean that the accelerometers on the train station register zero, while the accelerometers on the train measure dv/dt > 0.

So QQ, all are exceptions to the equivalence of inertial frames postulate.

QQ, one does not experinece anything from uniformity, by definition uniformity is the state of of an object when the sum of all external forces are zero. How can uniform motion possibly have an effect on timing circuits? Now vibrate those suckers, where the circuits are wavel length of light length (or smaller -it depends on exposure wavelength of the photoresist circuit patterns) differences apart in electronic components in the integrated circuits, current carrying lines, EM radioation distances etc.

QQ, rewrite Newtonian physics with me or find a fault?

"When the sum of external forces on an object are zero the object remains in a state of unifom motion." (I. Newton as Edited by G, ?)​

Geistkiesel ​

 

You are saying that the contradiction will be the result. Each will indicate a time before the other. This is what I understand you to say.

However, here is no no possible way to verify the claim, very suscpicious. Well, I guess we trust in the arithematic si'?

You believe in simultaneity has been lost do you, Sebejias, then put this to sleep, if you are able, unless all you have are your SRT formulae. You did notice that this is a physics forum, did you not?
Geistkiesel ​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SL the short answer to your complaint is that I am not in a position to buy anything. I have not the ability to make an informed purchase. Which is why I am seeking understanding.

It doesn't matter what I believe or think I know, what matters is not contingent on my beliefs.

To lock my self in to some one elses belief systems or into a strong possibly erronous belief such as "light travels" would be non-productive.

The whole world says that light travels but as yet I have not seen any proof that it does that can not be explained in other ways.....but as I said this is not the current issue, however it is in the background of my thoughts as I seek a way of proving my point about light.

I have already argued in my layman tongue that light can not have what I call "ordinary" velocity. That a light event may change position yet it's relative velocity is zero.
Light therefore can be said to move and yet not have velocity. Even this position is to me one that is accomodating current thought and allow me another step to understanding the logic of light that doesn't travel.

So , Ok i am out there with Crank .net. My belief or should I say lack of belief puts me in an incredulous position.
But this is simply because I know that until the "Big questions" are answered all we know has the potential to be just calculated speculations and very good ones.

Isn't it better to know the limitations of what we think we know than to belief that that is all there is?

 

QQ,

You are not a crank. Science is not about belief either. If you don't mind, let's examine, objectively, your thoughts about light. Ok? Could be interesting.

 

Posted by Geist:

"When the sum of external and internal forces on an object are zero the object will cease to exist"

"Motion is the necessary outcome of an imbalance of forces where by that motion provides the balance"

Geist it isnt hard to see that motion is an outcome of imbalance, the net result of the differential between forces.

Space time also offeres a force differential thus when the space time differential equals zero an object will cease to exist. It is this differential that keeps the object moving and thus it moves, it exists, or if it exists, it moves...

My thoughts only......

 

That would be fabulous........

I started a thread some time ago about this light velocity issue:
Light and ordinary velocity
We could continue our dialogue there if you wish.

 

Dosen't matter to me QQ. Here or there.

It sounds like you have a postulate:

"Light does not move."

We should first work on the postulate so that it says exactly what you want it to. OK? Otherwise there's no way to work on the consequences of the postulate. Right?

 

I did notice that this was a physics forum, and I believe that SRT is physics.

Geist, think about it for a moment. If B is moving relative to A, B's time is slowed compared to A's so when A's clock reads 10, (let's say that is the stopping point) B's will only read 8, for instance. So A will stop his clock at 10 and B won't stop his until he reads 10. Because of time dilation, A will see that it takes longer for B to reach 10 time units, then for himself to.

Because velocity is relative (admittedly, one of Einstein's postulates) B observes the same about A. I ask you the same question that I asked MacM, do you know SRT?

The fact that there is no way to verify the claim without accelerating makes it all the more likely that it is true.

Regarding that nonsense in the black box, many effects of SRT were experimentally proven so many times that I find it hard to believe that every single experimentalist either screwed up or made up his results.

Also, in the scenario, Red Dot never accelerated, so it was completely valid to say that it was never moving and that the earth and the platform was. The force being applied was only enough to counter friction. It was also completely valid to say that by her perspective, the photon from B was emitted first.

I could be wrong, but isn't a postulate something that can't be proven, but is based on intuition? So of course the Postulate can't be proven!

Finally, calling superluminal a moron does not make me want to look up to you and actually consider what you are saying.

 

I see what you mean!

 

Sabejias,

If you hang around long enough you will find that I am a cocktail-sipping, aristocratic, SRT propagandist who only parrots the SRT party line and has no ability to frame an original thought whatsoever. I feel so sorry for myself.