| Author |
 Topic  |
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
 Posted - 24 Jun 2003 : 10:26:56
|
Dr. Tom Van Flandern,
In your latest article "What the Global Positioning System tells us about the twin's paradox", you state in the abstract:
quote:
That clock will stay synchronized with Earth clocks, allowing a clear resolution of the twin's paradox in special relativity - why the traveler expects to come back younger, and why the stay-at-home twin is not entitled to the same expectation.
Then, you go ahead to actually prove the paradox, not resolve it. IMHO the paradox remains since in non-prefered reference frame motion as in SR, you show that the earth bound twin will age faster.
But the paradox is all about why this is happening in SR and not about how it is happenning, which is the subject dealt in the article.
To be specific, the paradox full name is:
"The twin paradox of Special Relativity"
and any reference to LR is maybe constructive in the context of that theory but irrelevant in the context of SR and its paradox.
Therefore, the paradox was not resolved but simply proved that it is a true paradox of SR.
Resolving the paradox would mean finding an invalid premise or contradiction in its premises. Nothing like that was achieved in the paper, with all respect.
For instance, proving that there is an inertial prefered reference frame for time would invalidate one of the paradox premises. But such proof does not exist yet, just a hypothesis. "..and hypotheses, whether occult or of mechanical nature have no place in experimental philosophy"( Sir Isaac Newton.)
In conclusion, if I may suggest that you change the word "resolution" to "affirmation".
|
|
|
Mac
USA
646 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jun 2003 : 18:30:28
|
makis,
What would not this make LR a preferred view and view the paradox in SR as evidence of its questionable validity?
|
 |
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 07:40:27
|
quote:
What would not this make LR a preferred view and view the paradox in SR as evidence of its questionable validity?
Dear Mac,
A couple problems with that:
1. It's like trying to solve a problem in Euclidean geometry using Lobachevskian principles and then declaring one or the other invalid.
2. There is no proof yet for the LR or the SR hypothesis, only experiments from which no inductions can be made so that the hypothesis is rendered a general physical law (see Galileo and Newton principles of experimental philosophy)
However, your suggestion is one way to go about invalidating SR but it takes more than naive interpretations and the problems are more profound than appear to the naked eye of the layman. So profound that many prefer to stay away from a resolution of the paradox because it may cause severe problem in science, and elsewhere.
I'm sure you, in particular, understand what I'm getting into but that's not a place for discussing these issues for now.
|
|
|
|
Emmanuelle
3 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 14:16:23
|
Forget the twin's paradox...The question for me is:Why age anyway?Whether on Earth or elsewhere?
Just because everybody seems to be doing so, it doesn't mean it has to be that way
And just because our 'physical laws' state so, it doesn't mean that there are no 'other' laws out there refuting the ones we have established here so far and that we keep 'proving' with such consistency...
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2003 : 14:29:14
|
quote:
And just because our 'physical laws' state so, it doesn't mean that there are no 'other' laws out there refuting the ones we have established here so far and that we keep 'proving' with such consistency...
Your question have merit withing the subject of Metaphysics, which examines what "things" are out there, why or why so. But in Physics, laws are validated by experimentation and subsequently rendered general by the rules of induction. SR is not stating any Physical laws aa some inerpret wrongly, but just a models or hypothesis. In that context, the model is consistent as is also LR or the Meta Model. When a physical observation is made that contradicts the model in such a way as to be general then the model is abandoned. Although, several experiments have been made that show contradictions of SR with observations, others has shown improved understanding of our world using that theory or model. Therefore, the jury is still out.
|
|
|
|
Emmanuelle
3 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2003 : 21:22:04
|
quote:
Your question have merit withing the subject of Metaphysics, which examines what "things" are out there, why or why so. But in Physics, laws are validated by experimentation and subsequently rendered general by the rules of induction. SR is not stating any Physical laws aa some inerpret wrongly, but just a models or hypothesis. In that context, the model is consistent as is also LR or the Meta Model. When a physical observation is made that contradicts the model in such a way as to be general then the model is abandoned. Although, several experiments have been made that show contradictions of SR with observations, others has shown improved understanding of our world using that theory or model. Therefore, the jury is still out.
Yes, I hear you , Makis.But what is Metaphysics, if not what comes AFTER physics(...as we know it?)?
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2003 : 17:46:20
|
quote:
[makis]: the paradox is all about why this is happening in SR and not about how it is happenning
Anyone can set up a straw man by making a false claim such as this one, then arguing endlessly about the consequences of the false statement. You and I have had this trouble before. If you have genuine questions, ask them. If you want to learn, then confine your remarks to understanding the science without taking jabs at people or groups. Nix the flame bait.
The Twins Paradox is not about whether or not asymmetric aging occurs. That was proved to happen long ago in muon experiments. True, it has not been proved to apply also to biological systems. But it would be weird if all of a person's atoms slowed down their motions, yet the person continued to age at a normal rate.
The Twins Paradox is about the reciprocity dilemma. If one twin ages less than another, why isn't the younger twin entitled to think that the other twin did the traveling and should therefore be the younger? The article addressed and solved THAT paradox.
quote:
the paradox was not resolved but simply proved that it is a true paradox of SR.
The word "paradox" in physics means an apparent contradiction with a resolution. All paradoxes in physics have resolutions. If they did not, they would be contradictions, not paradoxes. The expression "Twins Paradox" uses "paradox" in that sense. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 10:27:30
|
quote:
Anyone can set up a straw man by making a false claim such as this one, then arguing endlessly about the consequences of the false statement. You and I have had this trouble before. If you have genuine questions, ask them. If you want to learn, then confine your remarks to understanding the science without taking jabs at people or groups. Nix the flame bait.
I wonder how can anyone see anything non genuine in my statement. It troubles me that you begin your argument with an ad hominen attack. I do not expect this behavior from science people of your caliber.
quote:
The Twins Paradox is about the reciprocity dilemma. If one twin ages less than another, why isn't the younger twin entitled to think that the other twin did the traveling and should therefore be the younger? The article addressed and solved THAT paradox.
Why is it so hard for a person that has a Ph.D in orbital mechanics to understand that what was done in the article was simply proving the paradox rather than resolving it. You just prove what you state above and that is simply the paradox. In essence, your reaffirm the paradox. There was no resolution, even a undergrad in physics can understand that. Why can't you?
quote:
The word "paradox" in physics means an apparent contradiction with a resolution. All paradoxes in physics have resolutions. If they did not, they would be contradictions, not paradoxes. The expression "Twins Paradox" uses "paradox" in that sense.
This is exactly where your error is and you should try to reflect back and see what is wrong with your thinking, while refraining from attributing intentions to people they do not have. In short, the resolution of the paradox must take place within the framework of SR. But in that framework or model, reciprocity comes from an axiom and therefore, no resolution of the paradox can be. It is that simple. Try to digest it. Your alleged resolution is an eclectic mixture of your SR and LR interpretations, which are wrong in some counts but in others show an advanced understanding.
This was not an intent to undermine your work which has been tremendous and your accomplishements are recognized. This was a criticism about a specific point where you are simply wrong. While I learn from you, conceding to your own errors may help you to advance your current state of your understanding our the world and resolve some of the contradictions present in your models.
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 15:35:33
|
quote:
[makis]: I wonder how can anyone see anything non genuine in my statement.
Making false, provocative statements on the internet is called "flame bait". No one appreciates it unless they are seeking entertainment instead of knowledge. Genuine inquires are normally framed as a question, even when the asker is already certain of the answer. That is merely being polite. But making an assertion without justification, especially one that others see as plainly wrong on its face, is merely provocative.
quote:
It troubles me that you begin your argument with an ad hominen attack. I do not expect this behavior from science people of your caliber.
You get the benefit of the doubt the first time, but not thereafter. You have done this before, then claimed to be the victim of an "ad hominem attack". I said your statement is plainly wrong for the reasons I listed. Such criticisms of one's scientific opinions and methods of communication are not considered by most people as attacks against the person. In science, we are taught to welcome constructive criticism, and to recognize the difference between constructive and destructive. Your message shows little recognition of that difference on your part.
quote:
Why is it so hard for a person that has a Ph.D in orbital mechanics to understand that what was done in the article was simply proving the paradox rather than resolving it.
Provocative, argumentative, and uninformative. Compare: "Are you still beating your wife?"
quote:
You just prove what you state above and that is simply the paradox. In essence, your reaffirm the paradox. There was no resolution, even a undergrad in physics can understand that. Why can't you?
Repetitious. You have not succeeded in communicating any meaningful point, if you have one. Make an effort to express your point in a different way so that others can see if you have one, or you don't.
[tvf gives definition of paradox in physics]
quote:
This is exactly where your error is and you should try to reflect back and see what is wrong with your thinking, while refraining from attributing intentions to people they do not have.
This is continued provocation without adding anything useful to the discussion. Making apparently false claims without adding justification (reasoned argiment, experiment, observation, or citation) is just flame bait. Justify that you are correct and I am wrong about the meaning of "paradox", or refrain from posting. If you just want to argue, find another message board.
quote:
It is that simple. Try to digest it.
Patronizing and insulting. In the meantime, consider yourself cautioned.
quote:
Your alleged resolution is an eclectic mixture of your SR and LR interpretations, which are wrong in some counts but in others show an advanced understanding.
You don't say what you are talking about, or what is wrong with it. I suspected before that you were under-age. Kids often imitate adults without understanding the adult implications of their words.
quote:
This was a criticism about a specific point where you are simply wrong.
But I cannot learn anything from someone who makes claims without explanation or justification, then blusters and repeats himself when asked for specifics or details. Who could? If you are sincere, as you claim, then *explain* what is troubling you and ask if I have an answer, instead of just asserting that you are right and I am wrong. Watch how others behave, and imitate it more closely.
In any classroom, expect bad results when you insult the teacher. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2003 : 16:35:22
|
quote:
Repetitious. You have not succeeded in communicating any meaningful point, if you have one. Make an effort to express your point in a different way so that others can see if you have one, or you don't.
There is another side to every coin. In this case the other side is that maybe you cannot understand simple arguments. I do not perceive this forum as one to make demonstration of mathematical knowledge. My argument was straightforward and simple.
I will repeat for a last time what you did in your latest paper: You simply proved the conclusion of the paradox, which is that the earth bound twin will age faster. This is exactly why it is called a paradox within the framework of SR because one of the postulates, axiom, laws or whatever you want to call them, of that theory is the non-preferred reference frame notion. It does not matter which is the mechanism for the difference in aging. In the past people thought it was because the travelling twin had to accelerate. You claim constant velocity and time slippage. But the mechanism is not what resolves the paradox. It is the contradiction within the theory, between the interpretation of one of its postulates and a deduction regarding aging in non-preferred reference frames.
Now, how simpler one can give you of an explanation. If you cannot understand this do not blame it on me, please!
So to give you a helping hand, try to focuss on the interpretation of the axiom. There is where the answer lies and not in your time slippage thing. If you, the brain and omniscient TVF, can realize a different interpretation of the axiom then the paradox will be resolved. The secret is in the axiom and the paradox is a challenge to that.
P.S. For your information, Einstein considered this type of paradoxes as an indication of the world being "strange". He did not elaborate on that. My own personal explanation is that there can be no theory without a paradox. Maybe that is why Einstein meant by "strange".
quote:
In any classroom, expect bad results when you insult the teacher.
I agree. This applies to all of us, I hope.
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2003 : 03:33:10
|
quote:
[makis]: I will repeat for a last time what you did in your latest paper: You simply proved the conclusion of the paradox, which is that the earth bound twin will age faster.
*I* did not prove that the earth-bound twin will age more than the traveling twin. As I said in my 2nd previous post, that was shown in muon lifetime experiments many years ago. There is no longer any room to doubt the basic property of reality, that objects moving rapidly have longer lifetimes. If you are unfamiliar with muon experiments, I recommend reading up on them.
This obviously does not prove any contradiction because it is part of mainstream science. Or do you think all mainstream scientists are irrational and accept contradictions?
quote:
It does not matter which is the mechanism for the difference in aging.
No, but it does matter that the asymmetric aging is known to exist.
quote:
the mechanism is not what resolves the paradox. It is the contradiction within the theory, between the interpretation of one of its postulates and a deduction regarding aging in non-preferred reference frames.
So you do maintain that the theory contains a contradiction, and that mainstream scientists are either stupid or irrational. But my article was one of hundreds of ways written about over the last century to show that no real contradiction exists -- only an apparent contradiction, which is called a paradox. If you do not understand my explanation, we could discuss it. But you seem to be saying my explanation is irrelevant. And you seem to be in denial about what the experiments show about reality.
quote:
Now, how simpler one can give you of an explanation. If you cannot understand this do not blame it on me, please!
You have clarified enough that I can at least address the point you raised. Before, I could not understand what you meant at all.
It took 25 years after I was first taught special relativity before I understood the theory. I never did accept it as a valid description of reality. But I now do understand that it is an internally consistent theory. I recommend that you likewise adopt a humbler approach to things you do not yet understand until such time as they at least make sense, even if you do not agree with them.
quote:
try to focuss on the interpretation of the axiom. There is where the answer lies and not in your time slippage thing.
"Time slippage" is a way to understand special relativity, not reality. I do not accept either postulate that underlies SR. But I have no problem describing reality with LR, which requires neither postulate. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2003 : 05:16:34
|
quote:
So you do maintain that the theory contains a contradiction, and that mainstream scientists are either stupid or irrational. But my article was one of hundreds of ways written about over the last century to show that no real contradiction exists -- only an apparent contradiction, which is called a paradox. If you do not understand my explanation, we could discuss it. But you seem to be saying my explanation is irrelevant. And you seem to be in denial about what the experiments show about reality.
We are making significant progress in this discussion because we focussed on the issue at hand rather than accusing each other of ignorance, etc.(almost) I will try to answer your dense statement above, which contains several reference from the epistemological and ontological domain, which remain unanswered at large.
I do not say the theory has a contradiction. What I say is that a deduction in the theory leads to a contradiction with one of its axioms. I cannot say if that is permited or no in a theory. Aristotle and Euclid said it is not. Formalists of the 19th century resolved some issues regarding contradictions by introducing addtional axioms in logic but made some others worse.
You make reference to experiments. I would like to know on what good scientific grounds the inductions made from those experiments were rendered general and called a physical law. I understand the muon lifetime experiment. I also understand that there is no way for a muon to decide if another muon has aged faster or slower and transmit this information to humans. But this decision was made in another reference frame, that of the experimental setup, which violates the non-preferred reference frame axiom in the first place, because it is my interpretation (and claim) that the experimental setup (and specifically the concious interpretations of the humans involved) acted as a preferred reference frame. Just an example...
You see, things can get a little more complicated than appear. And I have only tauched the surface. I did not even get into epistemological or ontological issues of any deapth at all.
Maybe you are right, SR is a consistent theory but wrong model of reality. My point was that there is still a valid paradox in SR but that may depend on certain interpretations of a postulate. Furthermore, even if the interpretations are correct and the paradox is real or if other are correct and the paradox apparent and resolved, I cannot jump to the conclusion that the theory does not represent reality. This is simply because we have a metaphysical reference here: what is reality? is there one reality? is it constant? is it concious dependent? etc.
So humbler are those who are open to some possibilities rather than those who make definite or defiant declarations.
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2003 : 22:10:30
|
quote:
[makis]: I would like to know on what good scientific grounds the inductions made from those experiments were rendered general and called a physical law.
The theory of Special Relativity does not have the status of a physical law.
I take it we are agreed that SR can be discarded, even if not agreed about why. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2003 : 05:08:03
|
quote:
I take it we are agreed that SR can be discarded, even if not agreed about why. -|Tom|-
I think it is as important to agree about why. My personal opinion is as follows: Einstein, in the spirit of formalism of his time, developed a theory that is mathematical but due to the nature of its postulates cannot be refuted experimentally. I do not agree that time is another dimension. As a matter of fact, I do not believe time is anything special or specific at all. However, I think the speed of light invariance he introduced in an important concept and contribution. If I recall correctly now, Einstein called his theory "the Theory of invariances" and the name SR was given later by others. I can't find the reference now who called it SR.
If we reject the speed of light as an invariance, we must find something else to replace it with. There must be an invariance out there, otherwise we must go back to the aether idea, which has many problems. I take it you are proposing an "elysium" of some short (LCM) but I have trouble with material flux ideas so I reject that idea also. Not many choices left out there, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Mac
USA
646 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2003 : 09:41:34
|
makis or Tom,
What is your feeling about the following link. It is sound but is being suggested as being applicable to light as well. If so Relativity is based on a false premis in the first place.
http://home.tiscali.be/leo.gooris/src2/
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2003 : 11:26:33
|
Hi Mac,
I quote from the conclusion:
"...the sole real argument against Newtonian physics and in favour of the special relativity is invalidated.
Except for the singularity v = c, Newtonian and relativistic physics are completely equivalent in the description of nature.
The Lorentz transform now becomes a handy mathematical instrument to simplify problems in Newtonian physics, too complex to investigate directly."
It sounds like they are in extreme pain...an aspirin or the Tylenol you use in the states may help. :)
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2003 : 18:42:07
|
quote:
[makis]: There must be an invariance out there, otherwise we must go back to the aether idea, which has many problems.
We have been working on those problems, and solved them one by one. The old aether idea remains dead. But the modern idea is looking good. It is an extension of the Lorentz Ether Theory, modified as suggested by Tangherlini, Beckmann, Hatch, and myself -- and using the Lorentz transformations in the form proposed by Mansouri & Sexl. We call this modern aether, somewhat entrained by every mass, "elysium".
quote:
I take it you are proposing an "elysium" of some sort (LCM) but I have trouble with material flux ideas so I reject that idea also. Not many choices left out there, are there?
Indeed, the choices are limited. It seems important to me not to rule any of them out without sufficient cause. As everywhere in science, it is important to insulate our judgments from our biases. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2003 : 09:21:54
|
quote:
As everywhere in science, it is important to insulate our judgments from our biases. -|Tom|-
Agree, and that's proven very difficult to do.
I appreciate you participation in this discussion. Although in the past we have experienced some kind of harsh exchange, there is no doubt in my mind that you, your work and knowledge represent a real asset in today's scientific confussion. Especially, your effort to "salvage" what has been left is tremendous but I must point out that I do not agree on several counts with your theories, for whatever it worths.
I have a last comment or proposal to wrap up this discussion of your article. In your twin paradox interpretation that involves a constant travelling velocity, the reciprocity may break down if the moving twin experiences an accelaration for an interval dt, sufficient enough to excert a force on her. Although the equivalence principle states that gravitational and inertial accelerations are indistinguishable, only the moving twin will "feel the force". In this way, reciprocity breaks down, by way of "experiencing a force", which of course is a sort of a consious activity.
What is your opinion about the above approach of establishing non-reciprocity?
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2003 : 08:59:21
|
quote:
[makis]: What is your opinion about the above approach of establishing non-reciprocity?
My opinion is formed in large part from the experimental evidence that neither force nor acceleration can have any effect on clocks or time for any observer, apart from the known effect of velocity.
Therefore, a twin accelerating does nothing more to "break reciprocity" (symmetry) than does one twin wearing a red dress and the other a blue dress. The mechanism of "Lorentz boosts" allows any acceleration to be approximated as accurately as we please by a series of discrete velocity changes. According to SR, as the "traveling twin" orbits AC, remote time switches from past to future and back to past as the direction of that twin's velocity changes due to acceleration.
It is difficult to swallow that such changes in remote time are real, especially when the on-board "GPS clock" always correctly indicates what the age of the Earth-twin will be whenever the traveling twin drops back into the Earth frame. But it would be even more difficult to deny that is what SR requires. So this line of reasoning becomes another argument for LR over SR. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
makis
Greece
259 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2003 : 10:07:10
|
quote:
...neither force nor acceleration can have any effect on clocks or time for any observer, apart from the known effect of velocity.
Agree but I did not mention acceleration because of its effect or no effect on time. Just from the point of view of establishing which reference frame is affected by velocity changes in the twin's paradox. In other words, I proposed this as a test for braking down reciprocity and justifying the difference in aging. The travelling twin will experience a force when accelerating and the one back home will not. In the past this was presented as a resolution to the paradox. I propose it only as a means of establishing the fact that although the two reference frames may seems to have reciprocity in the context of the axioms of SR, there is an ultimate test of that and acceleration can provide it.
In other words: does reciprocity hold for non-inertial reference frames? If not, then this fact, although it doesn't not contrubute to time slippage, can be used to resolve the paradox. Because it is the frame of the travelling twin which has the property of changing to non-intertial and the earth bound twin cannot do that. But this change can only be interpeted in a consious way.
Do you see anything valuable in this chain of thought?
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2003 : 15:21:40
|
quote:
[makis]: I proposed this as a test for braking down reciprocity and justifying the difference in aging. The travelling twin will experience a force when accelerating and the one back home will not. In the past this was presented as a resolution to the paradox. I propose it only as a means of establishing the fact that although the two reference frames may seems to have reciprocity in the context of the axioms of SR, there is an ultimate test of that and acceleration can provide it.
When the traveler turns around, time back on Earth jumps from the traveler's past to her future. Yet acceleration has no effect on time or clocks. Indeed, we can prove it wasn't the acceleration that did it. Another traveler coming from the opposite direction, who has never accelerated, will see the same thing as the traveler who went to AC and then turned around.
Acceleration is a red herring, and IMO interferes with understanding the correct explanation.
quote:
In other words: does reciprocity hold for non-inertial reference frames?
Yes, through the mechanism of Lorentz boosts -- a series of infinitesimal speed increments. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Twin paradox "resolution" article
