http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
Only the fast moving twin experiences time slowdown. That is why there is no paradox.
The fast moving twin would always see the stay at home twins clock going fast. You cannot have both clock"s going slower than the other.
Relativistic effects are not reciprocal. The application of the reciprocity of relativistic effects is the problem.
Uhhhh.... what??? In relation to distant stars? Sounds like the sort of ad hoc b.s. an engineer would come up with. I obviously haven't read his paper, but it sounds ignorant to me, mostly for the reason that there is no paradox, in that the assymetry created by the fact that only one twin undergoes an acceleration resolves this "paradox."
As Chaunce said, the resolution of the "paradox" lies in the fact that you can't compare the amount of time that's passed for each of them unless you bring them both to rest in the same inertial reference frame. So one or both of them needs to be accelerated, violating the "special" part of special relativity.
Someone's b.s.-ing it--either the professor, or the reporter.
Someone's b.s.-ing it--either the professor, or the reporter.
The way I understood it was that since no state of motion is unique or can be considered "real" you could say that the earthbound twin was accelerating away from the traveling one. The non constant bit which resolves the problem is when the space traveling twin turns around to return - different frame of reference. As as been said there is no "paradox" here it is explained by the theory. I'm no expert, but I thought I'd grasped that much at least.
The paradox only exists if you insist on ascribing motion to things that have not actually accelerated. Only the twin moving fast through space will experience the transverse Doppler effect or the time slowdown.
You simply cannot have both clocks going slower than one another. The fast moving twin will always have the slower clock and the stay at home the faster (clock.)
You simply cannot have both clocks going slower than one another. The fast moving twin will always have the slower clock and the stay at home the faster (clock.)
There is no such thing as one twin aging less than the other through greater speed.
One observed basis can be than people who accumulate lots of frequent flyer miles will age slower than one who is afraid of flying. Just because someone is constantly (sum all speeds together) going 400-500 miles per hour doesn't mean that they will look younger than someone who only goes 35-65 miles per hour. Does this mean that if I jet-set all over the earth, move from woman to woman and drive fast cars I will stay young. (at heart maybe)
But seriously the transmission of light is limited by the vibrational transfer rate between gravitons just as the transmission of sound is limited by the vibrational transfer rate between hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen protons in earth's atmosphere. When a spaceship goes faster than the speed of light no light that started behind it will ever catch up (until the spaceship slows down to below the light speed) so therefore images from say earth will not be seen. The only thing that will affect the aging process by going faster is the reaction force produced by acceleration. Thus pressure of protons on protons will inevitably change the characteristics of the body. If moving at a constant velocity faster than the speed of light then no force to the protons will exist.
In conclusion, going faster or slower will create a force on an object which affects its mechanics (i.e. muscle tissue, compressed metals in a clock, movement) but it does not affect time or aging. Light speed is a limitation due to the medium of gravitons just as sound is a limitation due to is medium. There is no limiting medium within the Universe, the inventive mind cannot accept this.
One observed basis can be than people who accumulate lots of frequent flyer miles will age slower than one who is afraid of flying. Just because someone is constantly (sum all speeds together) going 400-500 miles per hour doesn't mean that they will look younger than someone who only goes 35-65 miles per hour. Does this mean that if I jet-set all over the earth, move from woman to woman and drive fast cars I will stay young. (at heart maybe)
But seriously the transmission of light is limited by the vibrational transfer rate between gravitons just as the transmission of sound is limited by the vibrational transfer rate between hydrogen/oxygen/nitrogen protons in earth's atmosphere. When a spaceship goes faster than the speed of light no light that started behind it will ever catch up (until the spaceship slows down to below the light speed) so therefore images from say earth will not be seen. The only thing that will affect the aging process by going faster is the reaction force produced by acceleration. Thus pressure of protons on protons will inevitably change the characteristics of the body. If moving at a constant velocity faster than the speed of light then no force to the protons will exist.
In conclusion, going faster or slower will create a force on an object which affects its mechanics (i.e. muscle tissue, compressed metals in a clock, movement) but it does not affect time or aging. Light speed is a limitation due to the medium of gravitons just as sound is a limitation due to is medium. There is no limiting medium within the Universe, the inventive mind cannot accept this.
QUOTE (Indurance+Feb 15 2007, 12:05 AM)
The way I understood it was that since no state of motion is unique or can be considered "real"
You can't magic away motion/acceleration/moving through space.
You can't magic away motion/acceleration/moving through space.
Let's call these twins A (Astronaut) and E (Earthbound).
This is a paradox of Special Relativity, not of General Relativity. Twin A undergoes an acceleration when he turns around. Acceleration is equivalent to gravity. Clocks run different speeds in different gravitational potentials. (This affects GPS satellites within their precision and must be accounted for. See Hartle's textbook "Gravity" for a sidebar on this.)
If Twin A imagines he is at rest, then he must interpret his apparent acceleration as the presence of a gravitational field (that magically turns on and off). He must account for this in his prediction of his Twin E's clock.
That's half the problem. When they meet, he'll also learn that Twin E did NOT experience an acceleration, even though Twin A thought he saw Twin E zoom away and come back. (Twin A could also deduce this by observing Twin E's clock.) To account for that, he must posit another gravitational field for Twin E (which he could imagine is a black hole that Earth slingshot around).
Of course, the calculations are easier if you assume the Earth is at rest.
The best way to understand the situation is to think of "movie frames" coming from each Twin in each clock tick. When Twin A turns around, he suddenly catches up with a bunch of frames from Twin B, so he observes no paradox.
This is a paradox of Special Relativity, not of General Relativity. Twin A undergoes an acceleration when he turns around. Acceleration is equivalent to gravity. Clocks run different speeds in different gravitational potentials. (This affects GPS satellites within their precision and must be accounted for. See Hartle's textbook "Gravity" for a sidebar on this.)
If Twin A imagines he is at rest, then he must interpret his apparent acceleration as the presence of a gravitational field (that magically turns on and off). He must account for this in his prediction of his Twin E's clock.
That's half the problem. When they meet, he'll also learn that Twin E did NOT experience an acceleration, even though Twin A thought he saw Twin E zoom away and come back. (Twin A could also deduce this by observing Twin E's clock.) To account for that, he must posit another gravitational field for Twin E (which he could imagine is a black hole that Earth slingshot around).
Of course, the calculations are easier if you assume the Earth is at rest.
The best way to understand the situation is to think of "movie frames" coming from each Twin in each clock tick. When Twin A turns around, he suddenly catches up with a bunch of frames from Twin B, so he observes no paradox.
QUOTE (Christopher Dunn+Feb 15 2007, 12:36 AM)
The best way to understand the situation is to think of "movie frames" coming from each Twin in each clock tick. When Twin A turns around, he suddenly catches up with a bunch of frames from Twin B, so he observes no paradox.
There is no more paradox when the traveling twin stops after he turns around because he is no longer moving fast through space. His motion in space is comparable to the stay at home twins and there is no difference comparable in the two's time rate.
There is no more paradox when the traveling twin stops after he turns around because he is no longer moving fast through space. His motion in space is comparable to the stay at home twins and there is no difference comparable in the two's time rate.
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 12:57 AM)
There is no more paradox when the traveling twin stops after he turns around because he is no longer moving fast through space. His motion in space is comparable to the stay at home twins and there is no difference comparable in the two's time rate.
If Twin A was moving away from Twin E at a constant velocity - say half the speed of light Twin E could be considered to be the one in motion. Twin A only experiences acceleration when he turns.
If Twin A was moving away from Twin E at a constant velocity - say half the speed of light Twin E could be considered to be the one in motion. Twin A only experiences acceleration when he turns.
QUOTE (Indurance+Feb 15 2007, 01:11 AM)
If Twin A was moving away from Twin E at a constant velocity - say half the speed of light Twin E could be considered to be the one in motion. Twin A only experiences acceleration when he turns.
The only one that can be considered in motion is the one that accelerated through space; ie felt weight. Weight is a consequence of acceleration. The stay at home twin cannot be said to have accelerated.
It is stupid to present kak's theory as a breakthrough from the physics world. The article talks about his theory as if it has been proved instead of a theory. Einstein talked about Mach's principle in his writings. Kak has apparently used Mach's principle as the basis of a relativity theory. There is no experimental proof for his theory.
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 01:18 AM)
The only one that can be considered in motion is the one that accelerated through space; ie felt weight. Weight is a consequence of acceleration. The stay at home twin cannot be said to have accelerated.
Maybe a space warp drove that astronaut that kidnapped her rival crazy. She was driven back to her childhood and put on a diaper as part of her disguise.
Maybe a space warp drove that astronaut that kidnapped her rival crazy. She was driven back to her childhood and put on a diaper as part of her disguise.
I've never understood how this was a paradox. Because they are twins and then they become different? Something that once might have been the same is only the same for an instant and then outside forces act upon it weather it be from experiences to an extra protein while still in the womb or hit by a wave of light. Things change, "time" is just another factor.
Since papers are already publishing this "resolution" as true, it basically means that we are all traveling at a high speed already and that moving "faster"(to our perception) actually counteracts the speed at which we are moving and in turns makes them person which we would normally perceive as going faster, actually goes slower. get it?
Heres a funny example, you turn on a flashlight, its not the light waves emitting from it thats moving, its actually the flashlight because the flashlight is moving in sync with the rest of the universe where as the light actually cancels the speed and slows down. it just appears to move faster because we appear stationary to us.
Personally I don't buy this explanation because I'm not that well versed on the topics. But from what I know the universe isn't moving at extreme speeds in sync with everything else in the universe. The only explanation I can think of for that is that our dimension is spinning or moving and light or any movement in this dimension transcends our dimension and counteracts the force of movement that the universe(dimension) is currently moving at so any movement we make or wave or anything is actually slower in reference to the rest of the universe. I read somewhere that theirs like 11 dimensions. is movement or velocity or something of the sort one of them? cuz according to this I think it should be.
I'm too young to think about this, I'm going to take a nap.
Since papers are already publishing this "resolution" as true, it basically means that we are all traveling at a high speed already and that moving "faster"(to our perception) actually counteracts the speed at which we are moving and in turns makes them person which we would normally perceive as going faster, actually goes slower. get it?
Heres a funny example, you turn on a flashlight, its not the light waves emitting from it thats moving, its actually the flashlight because the flashlight is moving in sync with the rest of the universe where as the light actually cancels the speed and slows down. it just appears to move faster because we appear stationary to us.
Personally I don't buy this explanation because I'm not that well versed on the topics. But from what I know the universe isn't moving at extreme speeds in sync with everything else in the universe. The only explanation I can think of for that is that our dimension is spinning or moving and light or any movement in this dimension transcends our dimension and counteracts the force of movement that the universe(dimension) is currently moving at so any movement we make or wave or anything is actually slower in reference to the rest of the universe. I read somewhere that theirs like 11 dimensions. is movement or velocity or something of the sort one of them? cuz according to this I think it should be.
I'm too young to think about this, I'm going to take a nap.
I don't get it, isn't time a property of space. Where is the problem ?
Spacetime is just that, a interwowen entity where time will adjust itself to such things as veilocity gravity etc etc. You will allway need a referencepoint to see thw 'twinn paradox' .
If you just could let those poor twins alone they would both swear on their mothers grave that time flowed at the same rate as usuall, nonwithstanding that one of them traveled at the speed of whatever.
Time is bound to you, it will adapt itself to you and treat you with care,
Cause you deserve it
Spacetime is just that, a interwowen entity where time will adjust itself to such things as veilocity gravity etc etc. You will allway need a referencepoint to see thw 'twinn paradox' .
If you just could let those poor twins alone they would both swear on their mothers grave that time flowed at the same rate as usuall, nonwithstanding that one of them traveled at the speed of whatever.
Time is bound to you, it will adapt itself to you and treat you with care,
Cause you deserve it
I find it very disheartening that physorg would make this a headline. Then I clicked on one of the side links to a similar physorg article title from 2004, I think it was, and found it had been written by none other than Vertner Vergon! What next, articles by Jack Sarfatti and Ludwig Plutonium?
This is ridiculous. I am very dissapointed with physorg. Somebody in physorg needs to learn a little physics.
Anyway.... back to the subject at hand. A great way to actually _picture_ general relativity follows:
Imagine two parallel mirrors pointing at each other. The mirrors allow a light pulse to bounce between them indefinately. Also imagine that these are actually long thin mirrors miles in length. Because they are miles in length, one can also shine a pulse of light at a slight angle (not quite perpendicular to the mirrors), such that the light follows a zig-zag pattern along the length of the mirrors and generally travels along the mirrors.
Now imagine two observers. One is sitting in a chair next to the mirrors and another is driving a fast car (say, a Mazda Miata) along the length of the mirrors. Both observers create a pulse of light such that, in their eyes, it bounces perpendicular to the mirrors.
Each observer sees the other's pulse of light bouncing at an angle and following a zig-zag pattern along the length of the mirrors. Because those pulses are bouncing at an angle, they take longer between each bounce. So each observer sees the other's pulse bouncing more slowly than his own.
The problem here is that the thought experiment, itself, contains a fault in fact. The thought experiment implies that the position of an electromagnetic field is independent of the observer (and likewise matter, according to Michaelson & Morley, because matter always acts exactly like confined light--gee, I wonder why). So this simply is not the case.
Light is comprised of electric and magnetic fields. An electric field is nothing more nor less than a changing magnetic field, and a magnetic field is nothing more nor less than a changing electric field. Therefore the position of the light pulse at a given point in time depends _completely_ on the position and movement of the observer.
Dig into this complicated relationship deeply enough and you find that everything actually comes out in the wash. There is no paradox if our friend in the Miata , along with his light pulse cleverly reflected backward with additional mirrors, returns to the fellow in the chair to compare notes. It turns out it is the acceleration that made the difference.
Let me point out that this is a classical explanation. There is a quantum mechanical explanation. As is any classical understanding, its not what's really happening. But it works for what its needed for.
Strange how the universe is so complicated yet it has no paradoxes.
This is ridiculous. I am very dissapointed with physorg. Somebody in physorg needs to learn a little physics.
Anyway.... back to the subject at hand. A great way to actually _picture_ general relativity follows:
Imagine two parallel mirrors pointing at each other. The mirrors allow a light pulse to bounce between them indefinately. Also imagine that these are actually long thin mirrors miles in length. Because they are miles in length, one can also shine a pulse of light at a slight angle (not quite perpendicular to the mirrors), such that the light follows a zig-zag pattern along the length of the mirrors and generally travels along the mirrors.
Now imagine two observers. One is sitting in a chair next to the mirrors and another is driving a fast car (say, a Mazda Miata) along the length of the mirrors. Both observers create a pulse of light such that, in their eyes, it bounces perpendicular to the mirrors.
Each observer sees the other's pulse of light bouncing at an angle and following a zig-zag pattern along the length of the mirrors. Because those pulses are bouncing at an angle, they take longer between each bounce. So each observer sees the other's pulse bouncing more slowly than his own.
The problem here is that the thought experiment, itself, contains a fault in fact. The thought experiment implies that the position of an electromagnetic field is independent of the observer (and likewise matter, according to Michaelson & Morley, because matter always acts exactly like confined light--gee, I wonder why). So this simply is not the case.
Light is comprised of electric and magnetic fields. An electric field is nothing more nor less than a changing magnetic field, and a magnetic field is nothing more nor less than a changing electric field. Therefore the position of the light pulse at a given point in time depends _completely_ on the position and movement of the observer.
Dig into this complicated relationship deeply enough and you find that everything actually comes out in the wash. There is no paradox if our friend in the Miata , along with his light pulse cleverly reflected backward with additional mirrors, returns to the fellow in the chair to compare notes. It turns out it is the acceleration that made the difference.
Let me point out that this is a classical explanation. There is a quantum mechanical explanation. As is any classical understanding, its not what's really happening. But it works for what its needed for.
Strange how the universe is so complicated yet it has no paradoxes.
QUOTE (yor_on+Feb 15 2007, 02:24 AM)
I don't get it, isn't time a property of space. Where is the problem ?
Spacetime is just that, a interwowen entity where time will adjust itself to such things as veilocity gravity etc etc. You will allway need a referencepoint to see thw 'twinn paradox' .
If you just could let those poor twins alone they would both swear on their mothers grave that time flowed at the same rate as usuall, nonwithstanding that one of them traveled at the speed of whatever.
Time is bound to you, it will adapt itself to you and treat you with care,
Cause you deserve it
Wherever time slows down so does every physical process. Absolutely everything slows. When someone with a slow clock looks at light or other things with a faster clock those things will appear accelerated by the difference in clockrate.
Travel fast enough and your clock will go slow enough that you will see the motions of everything approaching infinity. That's the appearence. And that appearence is Relativity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Spacetime is just that, a interwowen entity where time will adjust itself to such things as veilocity gravity etc etc. You will allway need a referencepoint to see thw 'twinn paradox' .
If you just could let those poor twins alone they would both swear on their mothers grave that time flowed at the same rate as usuall, nonwithstanding that one of them traveled at the speed of whatever.
Time is bound to you, it will adapt itself to you and treat you with care,
Cause you deserve it
Wherever time slows down so does every physical process. Absolutely everything slows. When someone with a slow clock looks at light or other things with a faster clock those things will appear accelerated by the difference in clockrate.
Travel fast enough and your clock will go slow enough that you will see the motions of everything approaching infinity. That's the appearence. And that appearence is Relativity.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Ummm... I beleive the paradox is in who is considered to be accelerating.. who at rest and who's accelerating. If this solution is correct, then I beleive it ties back to Mach's suggestion that inertia derives from resistance to movement through the web of graviational fields of the universe. It doesn't sound new, but then again, the details are typically way over the head of anything in a popular publication, so the devil's in the incomprehensible details. If they're saying they can *prove* Mach, then that's something new I think!
This is not a breakthrough because the twin paradox is only puzzling if you know nothing about General Relativity. The Equivalence Principle says that accelerating is no different from being stationary inside a gravity field, and General Relativity says that clocks in stronger gravity fields run slower. Therefore the one twin who does the traveling by accelerating is the one whose clock runs slower. What is so hard about understanding this? Why is this still even considered a paradox?
By the way, Mach's Principle can be proven but it takes knowing the mathematical relationship between electromagnetism and gravity to do it. Then it's a simple matter of using the wave equation to relate changes over time to changes over space.
By the way, Mach's Principle can be proven but it takes knowing the mathematical relationship between electromagnetism and gravity to do it. Then it's a simple matter of using the wave equation to relate changes over time to changes over space.
It is also useful to consider how the change in the spaceman's inertia occurred. In the usual stating of the 'paradox', the means of propulsion is neglected. Amongst the means of propulsion that are known to be possible, is anything really so unbalanced or confusing? In the case of a physical propellant, can you not see that during the spaceman's acceleration, the propellant is being accelerated in the opposite direction and thus will age differently than it would have if it were not accelerated? Does this not form a balance? When a physical 'paradox' is taken seriously, I want to cry.
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 12:57 AM)
There is no more paradox when the traveling twin stops after he turns around because he is no longer moving fast through space.
But their clocks will show different times. They could note the time in a log, get back together, and compare notes.
People are completely misunderstanding the paradox. It is a paradox of Special Relativity, demonstrating that Special Relativity is wrong when there is acceleration. It is not a paradox of General Relativity.
But their clocks will show different times. They could note the time in a log, get back together, and compare notes.
People are completely misunderstanding the paradox. It is a paradox of Special Relativity, demonstrating that Special Relativity is wrong when there is acceleration. It is not a paradox of General Relativity.
TWIN PARADOX AND WORSHIPPING DIVINE ALBERT
Einsteinians stopped worshipping Divine Albert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx35zMyFJ94
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog/2006/03/...einstein-robot/
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
because they discovered in 1918 Divine Albert had explained the twin paradox in an obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop Grumman Corp)
In his "obscure 1918 special relativity paper" Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
True, science and science education have been irreversibly destroyed
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...#39;/article.do
and scientists would learn by rote and then teach anything: "due to acceleration", "not due to acceleration" and even "both due to acceleration and not due to acceleration". They would learn by rote even this:
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
"LSU professor resolves Einstein's twin paradox. Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolved the twin paradox, known as one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics....Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak."
Bravo Kak! If your discovery had come a few months ago, Einsteinians would not have stopped worshipping Divine Albert.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Einsteinians stopped worshipping Divine Albert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx35zMyFJ94
http://www.physicsforums.com/blog/2006/03/...einstein-robot/
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
because they discovered in 1918 Divine Albert had explained the twin paradox in an obscure way:
http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/63304
2007 APS March Meeting Monday-Friday, March 5-9, 2007; Denver,
Colorado Session X21: General Theory Abstract: X21.00005 : Einstein's Obscure 1918 Special Relativity Paper Author: Tom Morton (Northrop Grumman Corp)
In his "obscure 1918 special relativity paper" Divine Albert said the asymmetrical aging was due to acceleration experienced by the travelling twin. Why did Divine Albert say so? Later Einsteinians discovered the twin paradox had nothing to do with acceleration - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
True, science and science education have been irreversibly destroyed
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...#39;/article.do
and scientists would learn by rote and then teach anything: "due to acceleration", "not due to acceleration" and even "both due to acceleration and not due to acceleration". They would learn by rote even this:
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
"LSU professor resolves Einstein's twin paradox. Subhash Kak, Delaune Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU, recently resolved the twin paradox, known as one of the most enduring puzzles of modern-day physics....Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak."
Bravo Kak! If your discovery had come a few months ago, Einsteinians would not have stopped worshipping Divine Albert.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
So far I've read through everyones responses and quite a few webpages dealing with the topics of special relativity and the twin paradox.
Everyone here seems to be saying that this is a paradox because of acceleration and special relativity. You need to stop using stupid terms and put it in terms people can understand. It's about perspective.
The paradox is thus: as A moves away from B, A sees B moving away at a speed, and B sees A moving away at a speed. Both see each other moving away at the speed and therefore both of their clocks they have with them should be slower than that of the other.
That paradox is an idiots paradox. So isn't "special" relativity, from what i've read special relativity doesn't take into account all aspects of the universe such as gravity.
That being said, That's the stupidest most incorrect theory I've ever heard! It's like me making up a theory called the Llama Theory that states, No matter ever exists. and yet, in reality, matter does exist, so we have a paradox? NO! THE THEORY IS WRONG THEIR IS NO PARADOX! SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG. Wrong theories no matter how entertaining need to be deleted from existance!
Everyone assumes it deals with the perspective of something thats moving and that no object is stationary, when in fact their is a stationary object what the most supermassive black hole in the universe is. That's the point of reference in which everything else is measured. Measuring perspective from yourself is something you do when your 2.
This world is so stupid it makes me sad! Why can't people just realize the truth and stop screwing around with false theoretical crap!
Plant a flag in the ground and run away from it, look back at it, did the flag move away from you??? NO YOU IDIOT YOU MOVED AWAY FROM IT, THE FLAG IS YOUR REFERENCE POINT FOR EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE! Whether it moves or not, you simply set a reference point and go from their.
people need to wake up!
Everyone here seems to be saying that this is a paradox because of acceleration and special relativity. You need to stop using stupid terms and put it in terms people can understand. It's about perspective.
The paradox is thus: as A moves away from B, A sees B moving away at a speed, and B sees A moving away at a speed. Both see each other moving away at the speed and therefore both of their clocks they have with them should be slower than that of the other.
That paradox is an idiots paradox. So isn't "special" relativity, from what i've read special relativity doesn't take into account all aspects of the universe such as gravity.
That being said, That's the stupidest most incorrect theory I've ever heard! It's like me making up a theory called the Llama Theory that states, No matter ever exists. and yet, in reality, matter does exist, so we have a paradox? NO! THE THEORY IS WRONG THEIR IS NO PARADOX! SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG. Wrong theories no matter how entertaining need to be deleted from existance!
Everyone assumes it deals with the perspective of something thats moving and that no object is stationary, when in fact their is a stationary object what the most supermassive black hole in the universe is. That's the point of reference in which everything else is measured. Measuring perspective from yourself is something you do when your 2.
This world is so stupid it makes me sad! Why can't people just realize the truth and stop screwing around with false theoretical crap!
Plant a flag in the ground and run away from it, look back at it, did the flag move away from you??? NO YOU IDIOT YOU MOVED AWAY FROM IT, THE FLAG IS YOUR REFERENCE POINT FOR EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE! Whether it moves or not, you simply set a reference point and go from their.
people need to wake up!
What a retarded article. How can he claim this paradox has not been resolved before. Some people amaze me.
Only one twin experiences acceleration in this scenario. Does the twin on earth feel like he has placed his foot on the gas pedal? NO This is what breaks the symmetry and gives the solution.
Only one twin experiences acceleration in this scenario. Does the twin on earth feel like he has placed his foot on the gas pedal? NO This is what breaks the symmetry and gives the solution.
I don't remember a damn thing beyond physics 101, but I don't see where there is a paradox either. Twin B might see the stationary twin A as accelerating away from him, but this is what we in the real world call an OPTICAL ILLUSION. It didn't happen this way, no matter what it might "look" like to twin B. Just ask twin C, who is sitting on the moon watching the whole event.
This is the paradox.
Let's say that E is the twin on earth and S is space.
if S takes off from earth and is directed to a place located at 8 Light years, if he was to travel at 80% of the light speed he would reach the place in 10 years and therefore he would be back home on earth in a total of 20 years, according to a clock on earth.
According to a clock on the spaceship, where times is "slowed down" by 40% since it is the moving object, it takes 12 years so, apparently, E is 20 years older while S is only 12 years older so S would be younger than E.
The paradox is evident when you consider that if E could see a clock on earth he would see it "slowing down" since in this case planet Earth is moving so he would register 12 years for the round trip and only about 7.2 years for E; so E is younger than S, which is exactly the opposite of what we had found before.
hope it helps,
ciao,
Pietro
Let's say that E is the twin on earth and S is space.
if S takes off from earth and is directed to a place located at 8 Light years, if he was to travel at 80% of the light speed he would reach the place in 10 years and therefore he would be back home on earth in a total of 20 years, according to a clock on earth.
According to a clock on the spaceship, where times is "slowed down" by 40% since it is the moving object, it takes 12 years so, apparently, E is 20 years older while S is only 12 years older so S would be younger than E.
The paradox is evident when you consider that if E could see a clock on earth he would see it "slowing down" since in this case planet Earth is moving so he would register 12 years for the round trip and only about 7.2 years for E; so E is younger than S, which is exactly the opposite of what we had found before.
hope it helps,
ciao,
Pietro
Whereas as light travels at the speed of light it has it's own relative timeline, how does this timeline compare to our own?
How old is a photon emmitted from a diode that takes one second to reach me?
How old is a photon emmitted from a diode that takes one second to reach me?
QUOTE (C+Feb 15 2007, 12:12 AM)
There is no such thing as one twin aging less than the other through greater speed.
One observed basis can be than people who accumulate lots of frequent flyer miles will age slower than one who is afraid of flying. Just because someone is constantly (sum all speeds together) going 400-500 miles per hour doesn't mean that they will look younger than someone who only goes 35-65 miles per hour. Does this mean that if I jet-set all over the earth, move from woman to woman and drive fast cars I will stay young. (at heart maybe)
The reason we don't observe people who fly aging slower than people who only drive is that BOTH speeds are slow. While 500mph seems fast in the context of travel on Earth, it is relatively slow compared to the speed of light (670,616,629 MPH). It has been shown that a clock placed on a plane moving at high speeds will move more slowly than an identical clock at rest here on earth. Time does change with speed.
One observed basis can be than people who accumulate lots of frequent flyer miles will age slower than one who is afraid of flying. Just because someone is constantly (sum all speeds together) going 400-500 miles per hour doesn't mean that they will look younger than someone who only goes 35-65 miles per hour. Does this mean that if I jet-set all over the earth, move from woman to woman and drive fast cars I will stay young. (at heart maybe)
The reason we don't observe people who fly aging slower than people who only drive is that BOTH speeds are slow. While 500mph seems fast in the context of travel on Earth, it is relatively slow compared to the speed of light (670,616,629 MPH). It has been shown that a clock placed on a plane moving at high speeds will move more slowly than an identical clock at rest here on earth. Time does change with speed.
In other words we are back to Newton's concept of absolute space.
A full derivation of the "paradox" in the framework of general relativity can be found here:
physics.unl.edu/~davis/cosmology/twin_flat.php
[Note: this page is only viewable in Firefox being an xhttp+mathml+svg xml file. Certain mathml fonts may need to be installed to get the full picture but most of it will be there nonethless.]
To simplify some of the equations one twin starts out moving as it passes the "stationary" twin and then comes to a rest. The calculations, however, hold in the general case of starting at rest, accelerating and then decelerating to a stop.
The author's citation of www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf to assert that general relativity offers no solution is misguided at best.
physics.unl.edu/~davis/cosmology/twin_flat.php
[Note: this page is only viewable in Firefox being an xhttp+mathml+svg xml file. Certain mathml fonts may need to be installed to get the full picture but most of it will be there nonethless.]
To simplify some of the equations one twin starts out moving as it passes the "stationary" twin and then comes to a rest. The calculations, however, hold in the general case of starting at rest, accelerating and then decelerating to a stop.
The author's citation of www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf to assert that general relativity offers no solution is misguided at best.
The comments I've read above are really confusing me. I am not an expert, but I've always been passionate of the twins paradox.
Most of the previous comments stated that the time slowdown on the moving inertial frame of reference (IFR) is due to the acceleration. Instead I knew that it is the "speed" (or better the relative movement) which creates the time slowdown effect. If it was not true, the time the slowdown effect lasts should be measured only along the time the acceleration lasts (i.e. the very first moments, say a few days) the space shuttle would accelerate leaving the earth to achieve its cruising speed. Instead you all agree to measure the duration of the entire travel, therefore I understand you refer to the speed (as reciprocal movement), not the acceleration.
I define acceleration as the time measure of the change of speed, i.e. acceleration includes in its definition both time and speed.
The speed, in the twins paradox, should be interpreted as the differential movement among two different IFRs, the IFR defined by the Shuttle (and all what is moving together with the Shuttle, including the astronaut and his/her clock) and the IFR defined by the Universe (and all what is moving together with the Universe).
Now, the Special Relativity is described by the Lorentz transformation, which clearly defines the relations between to IFRs.
The Twins Paradox is only a perceived paradox, just because if we assume the lack of a third IFR and we consider only the two IFRs of the shuttle and the universe, their relative equations will lead to the same results, regardless from where we start. In other terms, if we stay in the universe IFR, applying the transformation to calculate time and distance on the other IFR will lead to a reduction of time and reduction of distance in the sense of movement, while reversedly, if we stay on the shuttle IFR, the Lorentz transformation will lead to an increase of the measure of time in the other IFR compared to ours.
What does acceleration have to do with this?
Most of the previous comments stated that the time slowdown on the moving inertial frame of reference (IFR) is due to the acceleration. Instead I knew that it is the "speed" (or better the relative movement) which creates the time slowdown effect. If it was not true, the time the slowdown effect lasts should be measured only along the time the acceleration lasts (i.e. the very first moments, say a few days) the space shuttle would accelerate leaving the earth to achieve its cruising speed. Instead you all agree to measure the duration of the entire travel, therefore I understand you refer to the speed (as reciprocal movement), not the acceleration.
I define acceleration as the time measure of the change of speed, i.e. acceleration includes in its definition both time and speed.
The speed, in the twins paradox, should be interpreted as the differential movement among two different IFRs, the IFR defined by the Shuttle (and all what is moving together with the Shuttle, including the astronaut and his/her clock) and the IFR defined by the Universe (and all what is moving together with the Universe).
Now, the Special Relativity is described by the Lorentz transformation, which clearly defines the relations between to IFRs.
The Twins Paradox is only a perceived paradox, just because if we assume the lack of a third IFR and we consider only the two IFRs of the shuttle and the universe, their relative equations will lead to the same results, regardless from where we start. In other terms, if we stay in the universe IFR, applying the transformation to calculate time and distance on the other IFR will lead to a reduction of time and reduction of distance in the sense of movement, while reversedly, if we stay on the shuttle IFR, the Lorentz transformation will lead to an increase of the measure of time in the other IFR compared to ours.
What does acceleration have to do with this?
So a journalist and a student get drunk in a bar...
Twin Paradox is Resolved if the common factor shared between one frame of reference and another, is exposed.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
It cannot be determined whose clock must run slower by the claim of acceleration, because it may actually be a case of deceleration.
The outcome of comparing clocks, followed by a change in velocity, and then a second comparison of clocks, is the only way one can determine who is on the move across Space more than the other.
http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum.htm
It cannot be determined whose clock must run slower by the claim of acceleration, because it may actually be a case of deceleration.
The outcome of comparing clocks, followed by a change in velocity, and then a second comparison of clocks, is the only way one can determine who is on the move across Space more than the other.
QUOTE (Christopher Dunn+Feb 15 2007, 06:44 AM)
But their clocks will show different times.
The fast moving twin will always see the stay at home twin's clock going fast. The stay at home twin will always see the fast moving twin's clock running slow. That's the way it is.
The fast moving twin will always see the stay at home twin's clock going fast. The stay at home twin will always see the fast moving twin's clock running slow. That's the way it is.
The crux of the issue here is that the press release got the facts wrong because the author didn't understand what the published article is really about.
The paper is about using celestial objects to determine a reference inertial reference frame against which you can then identify the reference frames at work in a given Twins Paradox-like situation. It's an applied physics subject, rather than a theoretical physics one.
QUOTE
Abstract: This paper considers how the motion of an observer in an isotropic universe may be determined by measurements. This provides a means to identify inertial frames, yielding a simple resolution to the twins paradox of relativity theory in such a universe. We propose that isotropy is a requirement for a frame to be inertial; this makes it possible to relate motion to the large scale structure of the universe.
The paper is about using celestial objects to determine a reference inertial reference frame against which you can then identify the reference frames at work in a given Twins Paradox-like situation. It's an applied physics subject, rather than a theoretical physics one.
All inertial frames can be said to be moving through space. The faster they are the shorter their space-time metric.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls --
right.
im a bit new to physics and theories and what not.
I think i understand the paradox and its supposed resolution.
maybe not though.
What about if twin A was transported (its unimportant how he/she got there) to an area of space that was not affected by any planetary orbit and so completely motionless.
In the mean time twin B sat on earth, which travels around 108,000kms an hour (according to the internet)
Since twin B is moving pretty fast does that mean that twin A would age at a faster rate?
think it through...
im a bit new to physics and theories and what not.
I think i understand the paradox and its supposed resolution.
maybe not though.
What about if twin A was transported (its unimportant how he/she got there) to an area of space that was not affected by any planetary orbit and so completely motionless.
In the mean time twin B sat on earth, which travels around 108,000kms an hour (according to the internet)
Since twin B is moving pretty fast does that mean that twin A would age at a faster rate?
think it through...
So....if my future children were to build a warp speed Death Star type of habitat, they could concievable live longer as technological advances allowed faster speeds to become attained?
Hmmmm....
Hmmmm....
hahaha tulane.
My theory, which I think explains it more simply and elegantly is that it's not the speed that causes the relativistic effects, it's the acceleration required to get to the velocity. The fact that energy is poured into the moving twin to accelerate him is the difference. When we accelerate, we actually change frames of reference. The accelerating/ed twin is no longer actually moving in the same 4D coordinate system as the stationary twin.
Again, this is completely theory, I have no mathematics to back this up.
Again, this is completely theory, I have no mathematics to back this up.
QUOTE (Gabe E. Nydick+Feb 16 2007, 03:22 AM)
My theory, which I think explains it more simply and elegantly is that it's not the speed that causes the relativistic effects, it's the acceleration required to get to the velocity.
Acceleration is what leads to speed!!!
Acceleration is what leads to speed!!!
could someone please explain in layman's terms this sentence from the article: "the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion"
Let's say you could only observe two objects that are twins to eachother. Let's say they appear to be moving away from eachother at near the speed of light. Which experiences what time differences?
to there is that difference in the time marked by the clocks might think that has
an observer(clock),as reference of absolute rest and other with speed near the
speed of light.and in special that the manifold of spacetime be compacted,to claim
that all events of the universe be whithin of closed system.it is,the curves of spacetime are closeds,without violate causality.then the deformations of the spacetime,imples in the variations of time and space in fouth-dimension,that isn't
symmetric,to transformations by rotations-with spinors that is asymmetric by reversions of pt.then the differences between the transformations of left-handed rotations to right-handed and vivce-versa is the difference in the spacetime in fourth- dimensions continuos,that have para-compacted intervals,it is,discretes.then the time is dilated and space is contrayed,would think that the
relativistic effects,are geometric.the deformations of spacetime to the curves of spacetime that are variables with the speed.
is interest take a referential as distant stars,to calcule the effects of time slow
down.
an observer(clock),as reference of absolute rest and other with speed near the
speed of light.and in special that the manifold of spacetime be compacted,to claim
that all events of the universe be whithin of closed system.it is,the curves of spacetime are closeds,without violate causality.then the deformations of the spacetime,imples in the variations of time and space in fouth-dimension,that isn't
symmetric,to transformations by rotations-with spinors that is asymmetric by reversions of pt.then the differences between the transformations of left-handed rotations to right-handed and vivce-versa is the difference in the spacetime in fourth- dimensions continuos,that have para-compacted intervals,it is,discretes.then the time is dilated and space is contrayed,would think that the
relativistic effects,are geometric.the deformations of spacetime to the curves of spacetime that are variables with the speed.
is interest take a referential as distant stars,to calcule the effects of time slow
down.
This is the first time I've seen the twin paradox referred to as a real paradox and not an apparent one. I think that any introducation to special relativity (see for example "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler) will give the explanation that has already been mentioned in other posts: You can easily tell the difference between the reference frames of the two observers, because one of them must apply acceleration. The author of this web page is plain wrong in saying that the earthbound observer "is the one who would be considered to be in motion." It is even wrong to claim that because of the principle of relativity the observers are equivalent. The acceleration of one of these observers means that the principle of special relativity can't be invoked in order to argue that the two observers must be considered on equal footing. So I would say that this article misinterprets the twin "paradox," does not mention its resolution given in any intro text, and ends with some complete nonsense about space applications.
What, then, about Kak's paper? First of all, Kak dismisses the idea that the paradox is resolved simply by saying that one of the twins accelerates. His reason is that the space-traveller could, "in principle," make the time of this acceleration arbitrarily short. He doesn't say why this is a problem, but I imagine it has to do with the need to make measurements to detect that acceleration. If there are limits to how quickly one can make measurements (because of the uncertainty principle?) then this is a problem. This also suggests that what Kak is really worried about is the problem of distinguishing, in principle, between the observers by means of measurements. In his words, he gives "a new principle for the identification of intertial frames." This is a much more philosophical
question than this web article would suggest - not the kind of thing that will "have some impact on quantum communications and computers." I haven't read all of Kak's paper - it could very well be interesting (unfortunately it costs money to access journals online), but it has no relation to the fabrications of this article.
Unfortunately this is a typical example of the sensationalist tone of so much popular science journalism. In these publications there is no trace of the real nature of scientific research - years of hard work in order to acheive a small, often mundane-sounding, result. Everything has to be a revolution. It's no wonder that there are some people who end up believing crazy things - some of the replies to this article are evidence of this. Popular science publishers are very much at fault for creating so-called "crackpots" who believe that they have disproven well-established theories - they make things sounds too simple. I don't want to sound elitist, but here is how I feel about learning physics: You can't learn physics by reading Scientific American, The Elegant Universe, or, heaven forbid, this crap. Physics is difficult. If you want to learn something about physics, find some decent textbooks at the appropriate level, learn the math, work the problems. You will not be disproving relativity and quantum mechanics, you will not be proving people wrong. But you will be rewarded after months and months of work with the understanding of sometimes insignificant, but often beautful things.
What, then, about Kak's paper? First of all, Kak dismisses the idea that the paradox is resolved simply by saying that one of the twins accelerates. His reason is that the space-traveller could, "in principle," make the time of this acceleration arbitrarily short. He doesn't say why this is a problem, but I imagine it has to do with the need to make measurements to detect that acceleration. If there are limits to how quickly one can make measurements (because of the uncertainty principle?) then this is a problem. This also suggests that what Kak is really worried about is the problem of distinguishing, in principle, between the observers by means of measurements. In his words, he gives "a new principle for the identification of intertial frames." This is a much more philosophical
question than this web article would suggest - not the kind of thing that will "have some impact on quantum communications and computers." I haven't read all of Kak's paper - it could very well be interesting (unfortunately it costs money to access journals online), but it has no relation to the fabrications of this article.
Unfortunately this is a typical example of the sensationalist tone of so much popular science journalism. In these publications there is no trace of the real nature of scientific research - years of hard work in order to acheive a small, often mundane-sounding, result. Everything has to be a revolution. It's no wonder that there are some people who end up believing crazy things - some of the replies to this article are evidence of this. Popular science publishers are very much at fault for creating so-called "crackpots" who believe that they have disproven well-established theories - they make things sounds too simple. I don't want to sound elitist, but here is how I feel about learning physics: You can't learn physics by reading Scientific American, The Elegant Universe, or, heaven forbid, this crap. Physics is difficult. If you want to learn something about physics, find some decent textbooks at the appropriate level, learn the math, work the problems. You will not be disproving relativity and quantum mechanics, you will not be proving people wrong. But you will be rewarded after months and months of work with the understanding of sometimes insignificant, but often beautful things.
Ok LOL a primer for all you people who haven't yet learned about relativity... you CAN have both clocks going slower than the other one... hence the name "relativity." Which clock is going slower depends on which twin you ask. In the reference frame of the twin who stayed home, his brother's clock is going slower. In the reference frame of the twin who went on the space trip, his brother's clock is going slower. This is possible because "simultaneous" events must be measured in the same frame of reference.
To put it another way, if the earthbound twin's name is Ness, and the spacefaring one is named Jeff, things that happened at the same time for Ness don't happen at the same time for Jeff.
It won't let me post a link, but google for "Intro to Relativity" and click the second link for a much more thorough explanation.
To put it another way, if the earthbound twin's name is Ness, and the spacefaring one is named Jeff, things that happened at the same time for Ness don't happen at the same time for Jeff.
It won't let me post a link, but google for "Intro to Relativity" and click the second link for a much more thorough explanation.
The twin that needs to accelerate to reach a high speed must and to brake to return to Earth must be compared with the twin that needs no acceleration in relation to normal trajectory on remaining in Earth.
The comparison to distant stars is not necessary, the only thing is to establish who needs to accelerate on initiating the travel and to brake on returning to Earth at the end of the travel.
The twin that needs no acceleration nor braking will be more aged than his brother, who needs to accelerate and then to brake to return to Earth.
The question is ¿Who really moves? Who really moves is the one that needs to accelerate and to brake to return to the same point.
Who don’t need to accelerate nor to brake, even if he is on board of Planet Earth traveling at 39 km/s around the Sun, and at 270 km/s around the galaxy, can be considered not moving in comparison to his twin brother who needed to accelerate and to brake after his journey to Alpha Centaurus.
Jaime Soto Figueroa
The comparison to distant stars is not necessary, the only thing is to establish who needs to accelerate on initiating the travel and to brake on returning to Earth at the end of the travel.
The twin that needs no acceleration nor braking will be more aged than his brother, who needs to accelerate and then to brake to return to Earth.
The question is ¿Who really moves? Who really moves is the one that needs to accelerate and to brake to return to the same point.
Who don’t need to accelerate nor to brake, even if he is on board of Planet Earth traveling at 39 km/s around the Sun, and at 270 km/s around the galaxy, can be considered not moving in comparison to his twin brother who needed to accelerate and to brake after his journey to Alpha Centaurus.
Jaime Soto Figueroa
who knows the twin paradox be linked to some inertial referential systems that be not associated to the two clocks,measured.the twin that remained in the earth in
relative rest(as could accurate the ticks of the clocks)and the twin travelling.But the
measure of these clocks and the variations of space and time(in each point of curvatures,the speed is variable in connexion with rays of curves)are connected to
the system that is out of that curvatures( pathways) followed by the spaceships
going and returning to the earth).then the twin paradox and time dilatation are
originated by NON-LOCAL EFFECTS and effects produced by non-symmetry of the
opperator P and opperator T that fusioned space and time(=spacetimes)
relative rest(as could accurate the ticks of the clocks)and the twin travelling.But the
measure of these clocks and the variations of space and time(in each point of curvatures,the speed is variable in connexion with rays of curves)are connected to
the system that is out of that curvatures( pathways) followed by the spaceships
going and returning to the earth).then the twin paradox and time dilatation are
originated by NON-LOCAL EFFECTS and effects produced by non-symmetry of the
opperator P and opperator T that fusioned space and time(=spacetimes)
Total nonsense. Any and all organizations that give it credibility deserve (and will eventually get) a good dose of ridicule.
what is the organization or secret society goes destroy the world,with the paradox,that isn't paradox.this yes,is ridiculous,and absurd without size.
The resolution to the "twin paradox" (which is properly an <i>apparent</i> paradox) has been in textbooks for a very long time. This article's implication that the paradox was just solved by this LSU professor is entirely false.
seth-accord with you
QUOTE (g.b. collins+Feb 16 2007, 03:47 AM)
could someone please explain in layman's terms this sentence from the article: "the earthbound twin is the one who would be considered to be in motion"
The Earth twin does not move through space at high speed. The traveling twin does. Therefor only its clock runs slow!
The Earth twin does not move through space at high speed. The traveling twin does. Therefor only its clock runs slow!
I agree with all of you who know what your talking about...however. The article talks about the guy solving the paradox. The paradox is, for those of you who don't know, that when one object moves through space it is impossible to tell which one is really moving and which one is stationary.....simply put it is relative. For example according to the theory of relativity when we see a comet moving at great speed across the sky it may be us who are moving and the comet being stationary. If this seems confusing to you then remember that the whole universe is moving...every particle and every planet...arguments such as "we know we are orbiting the sun" do not apply because we are only orbiting around the sun within our solar system...but whose to say our solar system isn't moving through space...to Recap... the guy has answered the paradox by using a third and external view point as apposed to the view points of the twins...I am not completely sure but the external view point would have to be either completely stationary or very far away so that it's speed wouldn't effect it's position too much.
Or I could just be talking out of my ***.... :D
Or I could just be talking out of my ***.... :D
QUOTE (LittleB+Feb 16 2007, 05:36 PM)
I agree with all of you who know what your talking about...however. The article talks about the guy solving the paradox. The paradox is, for those of you who don't know, that when one object moves through space it is impossible to tell which one is really moving and which one is stationary
There is a way to tell which one is moving fast. It is the one that felt weight under acceleration. That is the one experiencing the transverse Doppler effect. The one whose clock is running slow is the one moving(faster.)
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
There is a way to tell which one is moving fast. It is the one that felt weight under acceleration. That is the one experiencing the transverse Doppler effect. The one whose clock is running slow is the one moving(faster.)
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
I'm actually sitting in Dr. Kak's class right now.
Does anyone have a question for him?
Does anyone have a question for him?
QUOTE (LSU Student+Feb 16 2007, 06:50 PM)
I'm actually sitting in Dr. Kak's class right now.
Does anyone have a question for him?
Yes. Can he explain how the accelerated twin the one that felt weight in acceleration cannot be said to have motion through space?
Does anyone have a question for him?
Yes. Can he explain how the accelerated twin the one that felt weight in acceleration cannot be said to have motion through space?
Admittedly, I'm not a physicist. However, it's my understanding that the "paradox" part of the twin paradox has nothing to do with the effect that motion has on time. The problem is the assumption (dating back to Galileo) that relativity has no "stationary reference frame". In other words, it's been assumed that the aging effects of motion on time can be explained by the relationship between the two moving objects, irrespective of their objective environment.
So for example, if you disregard the fact that one sibling is stationary while the other is moving away from the sibling, you'd merely measure the increased distance between the two twins at a set velocity, and the twins would see one another as younger. Of course, that doesn't make any sense.
The article claims that, "Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory."
Here, the article probably refers to Eintstein's "special relativity". Einstein created a law that applies the theory of relativity to "inertial frames", claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is somehow exempt.
Einstein developed a theory to account for a) the fact that relativity has no stationary reference frame, and
the fact that velocity would have an effect on time assymetrically, in a relationship between two variables. He tried to accomplish this by claiming that "the speed of light in a vaccum is a universal constant". Not being a physicist, I find it really confusing... particularly how this would exempt the sibling on earth from the "vacuum" that the speed of light is said to be travelling. Why would we consider one sibling to be travelling at a velocity, and not both away from each other, unless we have some external frame of reference?
Either way, the LSU professor unfortunately named "Kak", “defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,”
So in other words, Kak claims that relativity isn't determined merely between two objects, but between two objects within the context of their objective, external environment. The sibling on Earth has to be considered stationary, in order to account for the slowed aging of the sibling who travels at the speed of light. This only makes sense if there's some external frame of reference determining that sibling A is moving away from sibling B... but relativity has been perceived as intrinsically without a frame of reference by academic physicists since Galileo.
On the other hand, this is not a new idea. Philosophers (pre-Post Modernism) have argued for the reconciliation between objectivity and relativity throughout the 20th century. A good example is Bertrand Russel's Problems of Philosophy.
So for example, if you disregard the fact that one sibling is stationary while the other is moving away from the sibling, you'd merely measure the increased distance between the two twins at a set velocity, and the twins would see one another as younger. Of course, that doesn't make any sense.
The article claims that, "Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory."
Here, the article probably refers to Eintstein's "special relativity". Einstein created a law that applies the theory of relativity to "inertial frames", claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is somehow exempt.
Einstein developed a theory to account for a) the fact that relativity has no stationary reference frame, and
the fact that velocity would have an effect on time assymetrically, in a relationship between two variables. He tried to accomplish this by claiming that "the speed of light in a vaccum is a universal constant". Not being a physicist, I find it really confusing... particularly how this would exempt the sibling on earth from the "vacuum" that the speed of light is said to be travelling. Why would we consider one sibling to be travelling at a velocity, and not both away from each other, unless we have some external frame of reference?Either way, the LSU professor unfortunately named "Kak", “defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,”
So in other words, Kak claims that relativity isn't determined merely between two objects, but between two objects within the context of their objective, external environment. The sibling on Earth has to be considered stationary, in order to account for the slowed aging of the sibling who travels at the speed of light. This only makes sense if there's some external frame of reference determining that sibling A is moving away from sibling B... but relativity has been perceived as intrinsically without a frame of reference by academic physicists since Galileo.
On the other hand, this is not a new idea. Philosophers (pre-Post Modernism) have argued for the reconciliation between objectivity and relativity throughout the 20th century. A good example is Bertrand Russel's Problems of Philosophy.
I'm still trying to understand how both Einstein and he see time as being relevent and not constant no matter what the circumstances are.
No matter how much I read or watch on topics such as this, I can not see how time can be anything other than constant, and all known matter bound to it.
No matter how much I read or watch on topics such as this, I can not see how time can be anything other than constant, and all known matter bound to it.
mr. kak- realize its studies in ideal situation,just to justify the called twin paradox.
if was paradox,einstein would be wrong.same the tachionic theories place the reality of time dilatation,as compacted spacetime,while the to superluminal speeds
are para-compacted spacetime,with differents relations of continuity of spacetime between the subluminal and superluminal speeds,with effexts that are non-local,
where appear the a "space" with metric and manifold not completely lorentzian.
that is the complex spacetime with imaginary speeds and particles with imaginary mass.then connection between the two worlds is made by tachions and antitachions
it is the inhomogeneous group of poincare,appear as the stuckelberg-feynman dysgrams that transform particles into antiparticles into and vice-versa,through of
reversion of time.then the tachions are particles that travel backward in time.
and therefore appear the time-dilatation and lenght-contraction,as asymmetry
between the superluminal and subluminal speeds.c is the constant,in the vrelations of rates of speeds between these 2-worlds.
if was paradox,einstein would be wrong.same the tachionic theories place the reality of time dilatation,as compacted spacetime,while the to superluminal speeds
are para-compacted spacetime,with differents relations of continuity of spacetime between the subluminal and superluminal speeds,with effexts that are non-local,
where appear the a "space" with metric and manifold not completely lorentzian.
that is the complex spacetime with imaginary speeds and particles with imaginary mass.then connection between the two worlds is made by tachions and antitachions
it is the inhomogeneous group of poincare,appear as the stuckelberg-feynman dysgrams that transform particles into antiparticles into and vice-versa,through of
reversion of time.then the tachions are particles that travel backward in time.
and therefore appear the time-dilatation and lenght-contraction,as asymmetry
between the superluminal and subluminal speeds.c is the constant,in the vrelations of rates of speeds between these 2-worlds.
The paradox is the impossibility of measuring the time between two different events in the universe. One on earth, Twin A, and one 4 light years away, Twin B. It's even impossible to measure simultaneous moments here on earth. The time station in America can never really be in perfect simultaneous harmony with the time station in Australia, because to do so would require communication between the two stations. It takes as much time as the speed of light for communication signals to be sent and received, so by the time the signal reaches the other station, the time at the original station has already moved forward, hence the impossibility of simultaneous events. So, if Twin A is almost 5 light years away from Twin B, then it would literally take 5 years for them to communicate over such a great distance. Hence-Twin B would be the same age as Twin A was 5 years ago once Twin A receives the message. Time does move slower the closer you approach the speed of light, this has been proven. Space and time are intertwined, the universe is constantly moving at the speed of light, all of space is. So if you are traveling the speed of light, you stand still in the exact moment you reached that speed. If you travel faster than the speed of light, you go into the past because you are catching up with light that's been reflected and is ahead of you. By the way, Einstein already said that all points of view are the same in the universe because there is no one frame of reference better than the other, everything is moving in relation to everything else! Nothing is still. It sounded like this article credited this professor with that idea, "Using probabilistic relationships, Kak’s solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it." Yeah pick up any Theory of Relativity book and you'll see that one of Einsteins foundations for his theory is exactly that.
To suggest that moving slower or faster through space determines age is rediculous. That would mean a slower moving planet is older than a faster moving planet. The earth and we ourselves are moving through space at high velocity. I can understand that if you sent a clock hurling through space to the sun, and we observed the clock on the way, the clock's time would seem to slow down, and by the time we observed the clock enter the sun, the time we would see would be almost 8 minutes behind our time, because it takes that amount of time for light to travel back here to our eyes. But if someone were able to observe synced clocks here and at the sun, I'm sure they would find their times to still be in sync no matter how slow or fast that clock travelled from here to the sun. The same with the traveler to the next closest star. If we watched, for 5 years, the traveller travel to the next distant star... it would take him 5 years to get there, but it would take us 10 years to see the event happen... he would appear to slow as he neared the distant star, and his arrival would be seen here 5 years after he actually arrived, because it would take 5 years for the light of that arrival to reach us. We would see him as he was 5 years before, but in actuality, if he travelled at the speed of light..... it would have taken him 5 years to get there, but we would see the event occur 10 years after he left here. And as long as we observed him being at that distant sun 5 light years away, he would always appear to us 5 years younger. However he would have aged the same as us. Time is the same everywhere and at all times, and I don't buy any of these theories.
Hey Demus.
I'm right there with you. While I understand time dilation in terms of the two clocks appearing to move at different rates despite moving in unison, I don't understand how velocity could actually slow time. It doesn't make sense to me, though I've tried to get my head around it.
I'm right there with you. While I understand time dilation in terms of the two clocks appearing to move at different rates despite moving in unison, I don't understand how velocity could actually slow time. It doesn't make sense to me, though I've tried to get my head around it.
Wait... to travel faster than light to a sun 5 light years away... would mean that you would get there faster than 5 years.. HOWEVER, you would not be travelling back in time... you would only be travelling faster than light... it's all an optical illusion.... 1.) while travelling at the speed of light, the traveller would see time APPEAR to stand still behind him, and ACCELERATE in front of him. It is only an optical illusion. 2.) travelling FASTER than the speed of light, one would see time APPEAR TO reverse behind him, and ACCELERATE in front of him. But this is NOT going back and forth in TIME, it is only playing dance with light waves. Once a traveller reached a destination 5 light years away, and stopped, time would APPEAR to resume to normal. He would see us 5 light years away (if he travelled the speed of light) as the same as the instant he left it. So to him, he would have travelled for 5 years BUT the place he left (US) would appear to be 5 years younger because the light from us is just reaching where he arrived. AGAIN, it's all a play with light, and NOT TIME travel. Now, if you travelled FASTER than light, and took only 1 year to get 5 light years away, stopped, turned around and looked back at the earth here, you would be observing light from here that was 4 years old. We would APPEAR 4 years younger, but we would all still be the same age. This is very simple guys, come on. Grasp the concept.
I wish I'd known that the scientific community at large still thought of this as a paradox. If I'd known, I could be the one getting papers published and articles written. There is no paradox, not because of relation to distant stars and not because of relation to whose motion changes and produces doppler effect, etc. There is no paradox because the motion should be compared based on the mean of distance between the twins and who is accellerating away from that central point at a higher rate. Obviously, they will each have a slower rate of time passing than the fixed central point because they're each moving faster than the central point between them at any given moment, however one of them will be moving faster than the other in relation to that point and therefore will have a slower rate of time elapsation than the other. I actually thought that one was common sense to anyone who could grasp physics. Thank you very much, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress. steve_alford@yahoo.com
To NICK:
Have you heard of the relativity (of motion)?
Have you heard of the relativity (of motion)?
I have a big problem with the theory. If the transit twin when travellin back to earth after 5 year gets sucked into a wormhole for another 5 years and then manages to return home, then who has aged more......confused because to the earthbound twin only 5 years have gone and the returning twin 10+ yrs have gone depending on how time(slow, fast or normal) has been spent in the wormhole.
The problem is "knowing" which frame of reference is actually accelerating. From the twin on the earths point of view the twin in the rocket is the one accelerating. However from the frame of reference of the twin in the rocket the twin on the earth appears to be accelerating away, thus the name relativity. I believe what this article is trying to say is that the professor simply used a third frame of reference ie the distant stars to determine which point of view is actually the one accelerating and thus the one to experience the time dilation.
QUOTE (DZ+Feb 16 2007, 08:09 PM)
To NICK:
Have you heard of the relativity (of motion)?
Relative motion is in potential to absolute motion. They are not the same things.
Does the station move any closer through space to get to the train?
The answer is no.
Einstein took his principle to far. He made relativistic effects reciprocal.
But the stations clock never runs any slower because it is not in motion. The train is. And since it is moving through space its clock will slow.
If a space ship took off from Mars and headed toward Earth can we say the earth has changed orbit because it is now moving toward that space ship?
"THE ANSWER IS NO OBVIOUSLY." NICK
Every motion must be considered a relative motion?
Uhmm. NO.
Have you heard of the relativity (of motion)?
Relative motion is in potential to absolute motion. They are not the same things.
Does the station move any closer through space to get to the train?
The answer is no.
Einstein took his principle to far. He made relativistic effects reciprocal.
But the stations clock never runs any slower because it is not in motion. The train is. And since it is moving through space its clock will slow.
If a space ship took off from Mars and headed toward Earth can we say the earth has changed orbit because it is now moving toward that space ship?
"THE ANSWER IS NO OBVIOUSLY." NICK
Every motion must be considered a relative motion?
Uhmm. NO.
I dont even know what everyone is going on about i use the net to download pron
I always thought the solution was simple:
From the "moving" twin's point of view time is going slower, thus the earthbound twin isn't moving fast at all. In addition, the period of time the slower twin is moving is much longer.
What am I missing?
From the "moving" twin's point of view time is going slower, thus the earthbound twin isn't moving fast at all. In addition, the period of time the slower twin is moving is much longer.
What am I missing?
I wasn't aware that the twin paradox was an actual paradox. I thought it was just undergrad physics application of special relativity, that is later resolved by a more thorough understanding of the importance of general relativity and acceleration.
QUOTE (Guest_nick+Feb 17 2007, 02:24 AM)
I always thought the solution was simple:
From the "moving" twin's point of view time is going slower, thus the earthbound twin isn't moving fast at all. In addition, the period of time the slower twin is moving is much longer.
What am I missing?
Only that the earthbound twins clock is running in near fastest time. Only the fast moving clock will experience the transverse Doppler effect or the slowing of the clock.
Fastest time is universal for light. Light's clock runs faster than matters simply because matter is never at rest. It is moving through space and as Einstein has said there is no absolute rest frame. Everything is moving in some way and this motion contracts the space-time metric. This slows time and shortens the meter rod.
There is a largest space-time metric.
From the "moving" twin's point of view time is going slower, thus the earthbound twin isn't moving fast at all. In addition, the period of time the slower twin is moving is much longer.
What am I missing?
Only that the earthbound twins clock is running in near fastest time. Only the fast moving clock will experience the transverse Doppler effect or the slowing of the clock.
Fastest time is universal for light. Light's clock runs faster than matters simply because matter is never at rest. It is moving through space and as Einstein has said there is no absolute rest frame. Everything is moving in some way and this motion contracts the space-time metric. This slows time and shortens the meter rod.
There is a largest space-time metric.
if the speed of light was same constant in the vaccum.have the same value to any
relative motion referential frames.then could yes,synchronizes clocks using the
velocity of light as parameter to measure the "ticks" of clocks.and its differences in
the space and time would be variables,are due the differences produced by acceleration,that is the second derivative of the space in function time,and therefore imply characterictics non-linear to the pathways between the spaceships
altering it velocity and the observers in earth in relative rest.then there the
acceleration can to seen as discontinuos,therefore the str,the as the charges in emf
could discretely emit energy,as packet.it is when the speed goes changing it magnitude.then the vector,that change the directions of spaceships(without altere
together magnitude),does produce the accelerations,altering the the rotation-direction of the spaceships,as if changes the direction of the spinor.the angular
momentum in the case would not be conserved.
i think that the called "twin paradox",that isn't paradox,but just the form of understand it is wrong.
relative motion referential frames.then could yes,synchronizes clocks using the
velocity of light as parameter to measure the "ticks" of clocks.and its differences in
the space and time would be variables,are due the differences produced by acceleration,that is the second derivative of the space in function time,and therefore imply characterictics non-linear to the pathways between the spaceships
altering it velocity and the observers in earth in relative rest.then there the
acceleration can to seen as discontinuos,therefore the str,the as the charges in emf
could discretely emit energy,as packet.it is when the speed goes changing it magnitude.then the vector,that change the directions of spaceships(without altere
together magnitude),does produce the accelerations,altering the the rotation-direction of the spaceships,as if changes the direction of the spinor.the angular
momentum in the case would not be conserved.
i think that the called "twin paradox",that isn't paradox,but just the form of understand it is wrong.
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 16 2007, 10:47 PM)
Einstein took his principle to far. He made relativistic effects reciprocal.
Nick means "Self-consistent."
Nick means "Self-consistent."
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 17 2007, 04:51 PM)
Nick means "Self-consistent."
No. Einstein said RECIPROCAL on the account that all laws must apply everywhere and at all times. But relatavistic effects cannot be considered laws in the truest sense of the word but are consequences of motion.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
No. Einstein said RECIPROCAL on the account that all laws must apply everywhere and at all times. But relatavistic effects cannot be considered laws in the truest sense of the word but are consequences of motion.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
I just had this strangest of thoughts while reading this thread!
Considering that vibrating atoms and molecules is a sort of continuous back and forth acelerating-decelerating, shouldn't extremely cold objects age more slowly compared to hot objects.
Considering that vibrating atoms and molecules is a sort of continuous back and forth acelerating-decelerating, shouldn't extremely cold objects age more slowly compared to hot objects.
Hello all
According to to the data from COBE/WMAP the Sun is moving through space at an approximately velocity of 552 km/s. If twin A has the same speed (relative to the Sun) but in the opposite direction of the Sun's direction (twin A has no dipole in his/her microwave back ground radiation) then who would age faster twin E who stayed on the Earth or twin A?
Disregard the gravitation time effects in this thought experiment.
According to to the data from COBE/WMAP the Sun is moving through space at an approximately velocity of 552 km/s. If twin A has the same speed (relative to the Sun) but in the opposite direction of the Sun's direction (twin A has no dipole in his/her microwave back ground radiation) then who would age faster twin E who stayed on the Earth or twin A?
Disregard the gravitation time effects in this thought experiment.
I thought this was a joke. But it's not April 1st. This prof really thinks he's resolved a 'paradox'??? The solution has been known for almost a 100 years.
The Twin Paradox, is just badly named and posed to students. It starts off by posing what seems to be a contradiction. The teacher then challenges his students to think of ways to resolve the 'paradox'. However, the solution to the paradox is well known and the discussion can be found in any text on the relativity. I'm not sure what this LSU prof is supposed to have 'proved'. But its sounds idiotic. It must be a joke.
Each of the twins really do see the other as aging slower. There is no paradox at this point because this is just relativity of time dilation. The reality of the paradox kicks in when the travelling twin turns around and returns to earth. He/she has to undergo an acceleration and is no longer in an inertial frame of reference. He can feel the forces of deceleration and acceleration and there is no doubt about who is moving. This is the General Theory of Relativity in action.
I suggest that this Kak joker read a book on relativity.. or maybe his ex-teachers should let him in on the joke...??
The Twin Paradox, is just badly named and posed to students. It starts off by posing what seems to be a contradiction. The teacher then challenges his students to think of ways to resolve the 'paradox'. However, the solution to the paradox is well known and the discussion can be found in any text on the relativity. I'm not sure what this LSU prof is supposed to have 'proved'. But its sounds idiotic. It must be a joke.
Each of the twins really do see the other as aging slower. There is no paradox at this point because this is just relativity of time dilation. The reality of the paradox kicks in when the travelling twin turns around and returns to earth. He/she has to undergo an acceleration and is no longer in an inertial frame of reference. He can feel the forces of deceleration and acceleration and there is no doubt about who is moving. This is the General Theory of Relativity in action.
I suggest that this Kak joker read a book on relativity.. or maybe his ex-teachers should let him in on the joke...??
I've downloaded and read the paper. The one thing that remains unclear to me is: how the heck did this drivel get past peer review?!
The paper is every bit as bad as the press release would lead one to think. The paper can be found in the arxiv archive at physics/0605199 (Moving Observers in an Isotropic Universe). The version as published in IJTP seems to differ only in the formating of the bibliography and citations.
Worse... it is not even particularly original. Kak is pretty much repeating ideas expressed by Indian relativity skeptic C. S. Unnikrishnan, as they appear in gr-qc/0406023 (Cosmic Relativity: The Fundamental Theory of Relativity, its Implications, and Experimental Tests). Kak does give a citation to a different paper by Unnikrishnan (also rubbish, IMO) but only as a justification for his claim that "The failure of the accepted views and resolutions can be traced to the fact that the special relativity principle formulated originally for physics in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled universe". Kak does not, however, give proper acknowledgment that his own proposed "resolution" is pretty much the same as Unnikrishnan gave.
The paper is every bit as bad as the press release would lead one to think. The paper can be found in the arxiv archive at physics/0605199 (Moving Observers in an Isotropic Universe). The version as published in IJTP seems to differ only in the formating of the bibliography and citations.
Worse... it is not even particularly original. Kak is pretty much repeating ideas expressed by Indian relativity skeptic C. S. Unnikrishnan, as they appear in gr-qc/0406023 (Cosmic Relativity: The Fundamental Theory of Relativity, its Implications, and Experimental Tests). Kak does give a citation to a different paper by Unnikrishnan (also rubbish, IMO) but only as a justification for his claim that "The failure of the accepted views and resolutions can be traced to the fact that the special relativity principle formulated originally for physics in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled universe". Kak does not, however, give proper acknowledgment that his own proposed "resolution" is pretty much the same as Unnikrishnan gave.
iand
QUOTE
when the travelling twin turns around and returns to earth. He/she has to undergo an acceleration and is no longer in an inertial frame of reference. He can feel the forces of deceleration and acceleration and there is no doubt about who is moving. This is the General Theory of Relativity in action.
This is exactly as I understood it myself. I am suprised at the variety of different views of the theory that have been expressed during this thread. I was beginning to wonder myself...
The findings are good ,but does the question of the twin on the earth in being relative motion with respect to th distant star does not come into play.
The earth moves(revolutes) with a particular angular velocity of 7.2 * 10^-2 rad\s, which equates to 9.3 * 10^7 m\s of linear velocity.It equates to about
30% of light's velocity.It brings into equation the relative motion of earthbound twin and would affect the rate of ageing of the earthbound twin.
The earth moves(revolutes) with a particular angular velocity of 7.2 * 10^-2 rad\s, which equates to 9.3 * 10^7 m\s of linear velocity.It equates to about
30% of light's velocity.It brings into equation the relative motion of earthbound twin and would affect the rate of ageing of the earthbound twin.
QUOTE (Demus+Feb 16 2007, 07:30 PM)
I'm still trying to understand how both Einstein and he see time as being relevent and not constant no matter what the circumstances are.
No matter how much I read or watch on topics such as this, I can not see how time can be anything other than constant, and all known matter bound to it.
Then you have not read anything at all of any worth on the matter in hand, not seen any of the mathematics, any of the proofs using pairs of atomic clocks, any of the hundreds of papers and experiments that have verified the results of SR and GR to astonishing accuracy over the last ~90 years. Time is inextricably linked to space and motion through it - if you cannot understand this, accept that someone in far better position to understand it has worked it out, proved it and that it will in all likelihood make no difference to you or how you view he universe unless, at some point in your life, you find yourself travelling at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light for some reason.
Honestly, the ignorance of the general public is almost a god-send compared to the belief of the uninitiated that they can somehow contribute something to discussion on a subject that they have no clue about whatsoever.
SR and GR are complex mathematical theories and the watered-down metaphors that are fed to the public as "fact" are as much to blame in this instance as the public's willingness to gobble them up and then believe that they have understood theories that took some of the greatest minds on the planet decades to develo. For the sanity of all involved - let scientists discuss science.
No matter how much I read or watch on topics such as this, I can not see how time can be anything other than constant, and all known matter bound to it.
Then you have not read anything at all of any worth on the matter in hand, not seen any of the mathematics, any of the proofs using pairs of atomic clocks, any of the hundreds of papers and experiments that have verified the results of SR and GR to astonishing accuracy over the last ~90 years. Time is inextricably linked to space and motion through it - if you cannot understand this, accept that someone in far better position to understand it has worked it out, proved it and that it will in all likelihood make no difference to you or how you view he universe unless, at some point in your life, you find yourself travelling at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light for some reason.
Honestly, the ignorance of the general public is almost a god-send compared to the belief of the uninitiated that they can somehow contribute something to discussion on a subject that they have no clue about whatsoever.
SR and GR are complex mathematical theories and the watered-down metaphors that are fed to the public as "fact" are as much to blame in this instance as the public's willingness to gobble them up and then believe that they have understood theories that took some of the greatest minds on the planet decades to develo. For the sanity of all involved - let scientists discuss science.
Nick,
Kinematics, the study of motion, was founded by Galileo Galilei. Galilean relativity, which is an important divergence from Aristotle, begins with the principle of inertia and concludes that there is no philosophical need for a absolute coordinate frame to the universe and no preferred rest frame. Unless the laws of physics, as tested by experiment, show that physics only works in a preferred frame of reference, the Galilean relativity is the preferred formulation of Newtonian physics. Indeed, on the moving surface of the Earth, this is the only sane approach.
Einstein noticed that Maxwell's equations seemed to require an absolute frame of rest, in contradiction of hundreds of years of experiment. The postulate that all observers see light (in a vacuum) travel at the same speed resolved the problem with Maxwell and, as a consequence, introduced the entire framework of special relativity.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=178890
Montec,
While you can interpret the dipole anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background as a relative velocity of the visible universe and the Sun, it is not a measure of the entire universe, but perhaps a very small part of it. If the law of time dilation depended on this "rest frame", you are correct to believe that clocks sent in a certain direction at 0-1100+ km/s would appear to speed up. This is not the observation, and there is no observation which is widely interpreted as proof that any preferred frame exists for the laws of physics.
Chris Ho-Stuart, welcome to the forum. Here's hoping you last until at least post 100.
Anmol chopra - relative to the poles, the Earth's equator rotates at only 1.5*10^-6 times the speed of light. -- so I'm not sure I understand where your numbers are coming from.
Guest_Physicist -- please note that the registered user "the1physicist" holds no such qualifications, and has formed a negative reputation. I, for one, would not call SR a complex mathematical theory, thanks to the work of Minkowski and Poincare. But it's not Euclidean or intuitionist. Since that's all what many of our posters have been exposed to, and since we are their peers, and not in a position of authority, I have found it useful to link to accessible references (like C.M.Will's article in Living Reviews of Relativity) or the textbook above.
// Edit -- there are:
the1physicist - Free-Energy enthusiast
Rogue Physicist - Disagrees with Newton's shell theorem
FailedPhysicist - Struggling high school student
AlternatePhysicist - Working without numbers
ThePhysicist - Bookseller
notaphysicist, physicist, tubaphysicist - No posts.
So, most user names with "physicist" or "dr" in them come across as puffery.
Kinematics, the study of motion, was founded by Galileo Galilei. Galilean relativity, which is an important divergence from Aristotle, begins with the principle of inertia and concludes that there is no philosophical need for a absolute coordinate frame to the universe and no preferred rest frame. Unless the laws of physics, as tested by experiment, show that physics only works in a preferred frame of reference, the Galilean relativity is the preferred formulation of Newtonian physics. Indeed, on the moving surface of the Earth, this is the only sane approach.
Einstein noticed that Maxwell's equations seemed to require an absolute frame of rest, in contradiction of hundreds of years of experiment. The postulate that all observers see light (in a vacuum) travel at the same speed resolved the problem with Maxwell and, as a consequence, introduced the entire framework of special relativity.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=178890
QUOTE
See page 35 of http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf (Relativity without c) to see that there is a whole family of self-consistent kinematic frameworks which are parameterized by a (possibly infinite) parameter with units like velocity. Relativity uses c as this parameter and so is consistent with Maxwell's equations and in good approximation is consistent with Newtonian math at low velocities.
Montec,
While you can interpret the dipole anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background as a relative velocity of the visible universe and the Sun, it is not a measure of the entire universe, but perhaps a very small part of it. If the law of time dilation depended on this "rest frame", you are correct to believe that clocks sent in a certain direction at 0-1100+ km/s would appear to speed up. This is not the observation, and there is no observation which is widely interpreted as proof that any preferred frame exists for the laws of physics.
Chris Ho-Stuart, welcome to the forum. Here's hoping you last until at least post 100.
Anmol chopra - relative to the poles, the Earth's equator rotates at only 1.5*10^-6 times the speed of light. -- so I'm not sure I understand where your numbers are coming from.
Guest_Physicist -- please note that the registered user "the1physicist" holds no such qualifications, and has formed a negative reputation. I, for one, would not call SR a complex mathematical theory, thanks to the work of Minkowski and Poincare. But it's not Euclidean or intuitionist. Since that's all what many of our posters have been exposed to, and since we are their peers, and not in a position of authority, I have found it useful to link to accessible references (like C.M.Will's article in Living Reviews of Relativity) or the textbook above.
// Edit -- there are:
the1physicist - Free-Energy enthusiast
Rogue Physicist - Disagrees with Newton's shell theorem
FailedPhysicist - Struggling high school student
AlternatePhysicist - Working without numbers
ThePhysicist - Bookseller
notaphysicist, physicist, tubaphysicist - No posts.
So, most user names with "physicist" or "dr" in them come across as puffery.
I think Nick has finally found a 'reputable' scientist to back up some of his absurd assumptions against Einstein. If you throw enough darts you're bound to hit a crazy balloon eventually. Try reading some reputable science and then you can throw out some educated rebuttals to mainstream science, maybe then you'll be taken seriously. I've read thread upon thread of Alpha Numeric trying to teach you some real physics, buy you blow him off with your divined knowledge. You have some interesting ideas, but you back them up with 'I know this to be true' which makes you sound arrogant, which I don't believe you to be, just an interested amateur.
Peace,
Ron
Peace,
Ron
rpenner
there is some topology to study the deformation of space and time in STR? when occur the fusion in spacetime,there occur the asymmetry that generate the
called twin paradox? would be the twin paradox a geometric problem,it is would
a reciprocity between the events that occur in the twin in spaceship with speed near
the light,while the other is relative rest (the clocks.were synchronized with the
clocks in rest),then there are variations of hyperbolic geomwetry,that would be a
pseudo-euclidean metric.that does the space deformed by the time(it is,the negative indefinite metric to M4 minkowskian manifold,with lorentzian metric and compacted manifold),that does the spacetime be variable with the spacetime curvatures associated to the variations of movement,V).then the acceleration would have some relations with the uniform rotations?
the quaternions would be a tool to give mathematical structure to STR?
greetings
there is some topology to study the deformation of space and time in STR? when occur the fusion in spacetime,there occur the asymmetry that generate the
called twin paradox? would be the twin paradox a geometric problem,it is would
a reciprocity between the events that occur in the twin in spaceship with speed near
the light,while the other is relative rest (the clocks.were synchronized with the
clocks in rest),then there are variations of hyperbolic geomwetry,that would be a
pseudo-euclidean metric.that does the space deformed by the time(it is,the negative indefinite metric to M4 minkowskian manifold,with lorentzian metric and compacted manifold),that does the spacetime be variable with the spacetime curvatures associated to the variations of movement,V).then the acceleration would have some relations with the uniform rotations?
the quaternions would be a tool to give mathematical structure to STR?
greetings
C[rackpot[s]
The sole reason in these banal scatterbrained nonsensical replies being that simplicity an clarity is beyond such posters understanding and hence most resolutions to obvious matters, which they seem to think lies in fantasy world Star Trek or their lunatic imaginative theories which make no sense to educated individuals beyond ramblings. God help us if these lot are to ever be qualified in science, which seems a far n wild dream judging on the replies. He solved it using accepted alternative methodologies which none other used and hence did what none of you here have done either nor anyone else- hence is a very wise man outclassing most others in his relativity comprehension. Shows we nowadays are far ahead of people we built on top of like Einstein, Minkowski, Poincare and will only get better. Everyone adds and we only get better if we work on accepted principles.
Nick and rpenner seem more right although differing and Nick is wrong in traditionally accepted physician eyes, he may have a point which isn;t noticed from the way he puts it forward. Why does a board like this have to be full of quacks and rejects of societies? No, most of you people replying in this thread are not representative of educated or actual students/professionals in science. Rather lunatics or conspiracy theorist quacks on every matter they can find!
Gosh I wish we saw people like this in REAL life on Earth.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 19 2007, 07:18 PM)
Guest_Physicist -- please note that the registered user "the1physicist" holds no such qualifications, and has formed a negative reputation. I, for one, would not call SR a complex mathematical theory, thanks to the work of Minkowski and Poincare. But it's not Euclidean or intuitionist. Since that's all what many of our posters have been exposed to, and since we are their peers, and not in a position of authority, I have found it useful to link to accessible references (like C.M.Will's article in Living Reviews of Relativity) or the textbook above.
// Edit -- there are:
the1physicist - Free-Energy enthusiast
Rogue Physicist - Disagrees with Newton's shell theorem
FailedPhysicist - Struggling high school student
AlternatePhysicist - Working without numbers
ThePhysicist - Bookseller
notaphysicist, physicist, tubaphysicist - No posts.
So, most user names with "physicist" or "dr" in them come across as puffery.
Having various posters on this topic not seem even willing to accept proven scientific theories with little more "evidence" than "I don't believe this, it doesn't make sense" and continuing to believe that somehow years of dedicated research by incredibly intelligent people is rubbished by their statement that it doesn't make sense makes me despair. It's as though they believe that with such a simple, dramatic statement the scientific community will realise "why, it's true - it doesn't make any sense! Our mistake, terribly sorry for the confusion."
I was unaware that announcing yourself as a physicist might be considered puffery - perhaps then, unregistered as I may be, the fact that I might be the first such user to actually correctly label myself in this way makes me the proverbial exception to the rule...
Education, if anything, should serve to alert the educated to just how little they really know, but to treasure what they do know and challenge themselves to discover more; to fill in the gaps. Those that feel that they can wade in with ridiculous statements about the validity of one of the two pillars of modern physics based on little more than hear say, poor news reporting, misinterpreted metaphors and little or no scientific or mathematical training but refuse to listen to, study or even just accept on faith any of the evidence presented should not have a place in a serious discussion. For example, from this thread alone:
"In conclusion, going faster or slower will create a force on an object which affects its mechanics (i.e. muscle tissue, compressed metals in a clock, movement) but it does not affect time or aging. Light speed is a limitation due to the medium of gravitons just as sound is a limitation due to is medium. There is no limiting medium within the Universe, the inventive mind cannot accept this." -> Nonsense.
"To suggest that moving slower or faster through space determines age is rediculous. That would mean a slower moving planet is older than a faster moving planet." -> Nonsense.
"Time is the same everywhere and at all times, and I don't buy any of these theories." -> Nonsense.
Fortunately there have been several sensible answers. I just felt incensed enough at the idiotic ones that something had to be said about it, because, at the end of the day, scientists do actually know what they're talking about for the most part and those that don't simply don't survive peer review and the test of time. Einstein's theories, be they complete or merely very good descriptions of how space and time are linked, survive to this day because they are tried and tested and the ignorance of the populous to the scientific method will not change that.
// Edit -- there are:
the1physicist - Free-Energy enthusiast
Rogue Physicist - Disagrees with Newton's shell theorem
FailedPhysicist - Struggling high school student
AlternatePhysicist - Working without numbers
ThePhysicist - Bookseller
notaphysicist, physicist, tubaphysicist - No posts.
So, most user names with "physicist" or "dr" in them come across as puffery.
Having various posters on this topic not seem even willing to accept proven scientific theories with little more "evidence" than "I don't believe this, it doesn't make sense" and continuing to believe that somehow years of dedicated research by incredibly intelligent people is rubbished by their statement that it doesn't make sense makes me despair. It's as though they believe that with such a simple, dramatic statement the scientific community will realise "why, it's true - it doesn't make any sense! Our mistake, terribly sorry for the confusion."
I was unaware that announcing yourself as a physicist might be considered puffery - perhaps then, unregistered as I may be, the fact that I might be the first such user to actually correctly label myself in this way makes me the proverbial exception to the rule...
Education, if anything, should serve to alert the educated to just how little they really know, but to treasure what they do know and challenge themselves to discover more; to fill in the gaps. Those that feel that they can wade in with ridiculous statements about the validity of one of the two pillars of modern physics based on little more than hear say, poor news reporting, misinterpreted metaphors and little or no scientific or mathematical training but refuse to listen to, study or even just accept on faith any of the evidence presented should not have a place in a serious discussion. For example, from this thread alone:
"In conclusion, going faster or slower will create a force on an object which affects its mechanics (i.e. muscle tissue, compressed metals in a clock, movement) but it does not affect time or aging. Light speed is a limitation due to the medium of gravitons just as sound is a limitation due to is medium. There is no limiting medium within the Universe, the inventive mind cannot accept this." -> Nonsense.
"To suggest that moving slower or faster through space determines age is rediculous. That would mean a slower moving planet is older than a faster moving planet." -> Nonsense.
"Time is the same everywhere and at all times, and I don't buy any of these theories." -> Nonsense.
Fortunately there have been several sensible answers. I just felt incensed enough at the idiotic ones that something had to be said about it, because, at the end of the day, scientists do actually know what they're talking about for the most part and those that don't simply don't survive peer review and the test of time. Einstein's theories, be they complete or merely very good descriptions of how space and time are linked, survive to this day because they are tried and tested and the ignorance of the populous to the scientific method will not change that.
i haven't read the article, but correct me if I'm wrong, its never was a "paradox" , it was only called that, b/c of the mind bending implications of Einsteins theory.
Now 'proverbial exception' . Do we not live? Please stay and share. On the other tentacle, you'll probably find much that is not to your liking, still here you'll get a chance to share your insights and help us other fumbling souls, compared as to having a class filled by bored teenagers, looking to score and not giving a *** for what you try to instill. And you know what maybe you're right ;) but at least we give you a chance to present your thoughts without the ridicule of your peers...
QUOTE (Renaldo+Feb 17 2007, 11:23 PM)
I just had this strangest of thoughts while reading this thread!
Considering that vibrating atoms and molecules is a sort of continuous back and forth acelerating-decelerating, shouldn't extremely cold objects age more slowly compared to hot objects.
quantum motion
Richard Feynman said " Everything giggles."
Considering that vibrating atoms and molecules is a sort of continuous back and forth acelerating-decelerating, shouldn't extremely cold objects age more slowly compared to hot objects.
quantum motion
Richard Feynman said " Everything giggles."
QUOTE (Montec+Feb 18 2007, 01:19 AM)
Hello all
According to to the data from COBE/WMAP the Sun is moving through space at an approximately velocity of 552 km/s. If twin A has the same speed (relative to the Sun) but in the opposite direction of the Sun's direction (twin A has no dipole in his/her microwave back ground radiation) then who would age faster twin E who stayed on the Earth or twin A?
Disregard the gravitation time effects in this thought experiment.
They would age the same.
According to to the data from COBE/WMAP the Sun is moving through space at an approximately velocity of 552 km/s. If twin A has the same speed (relative to the Sun) but in the opposite direction of the Sun's direction (twin A has no dipole in his/her microwave back ground radiation) then who would age faster twin E who stayed on the Earth or twin A?
Disregard the gravitation time effects in this thought experiment.
They would age the same.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 19 2007, 07:18 PM)
Einstein noticed that Maxwell's equations seemed to require an absolute frame of rest, in contradiction of hundreds of years of experiment. The postulate that all observers see light (in a vacuum) travel at the same speed resolved the problem with Maxwell and, as a consequence, introduced the entire framework of special relativity.
Light moves through the absolute rest frame. Its clock is the fastest.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Light moves through the absolute rest frame. Its clock is the fastest.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Guest_Physicist+Feb 20 2007, 03:48 PM)
I was unaware that announcing yourself as a physicist might be considered puffery - perhaps then, unregistered as I may be, the fact that I might be the first such user to actually correctly label myself in this way makes me the proverbial exception to the rule...
I believe "GeneSplicer" is actually a molecular biologist of some sort, and has also managed to gain much reputation. "Biologist," however, is no such thing. It's the generic problem of Internet anonymity and trust. I might be Rachel Penner, Ron Penner, Rabbi Penner, Rabbit Penner, Robot Penner or President GWB. (The last last appears unlikely if you can decode the rebus in my signature).
Registered users have a potential advantage in the feedback mechanism. Registered users can also conduct audits of other registered users' past posts. But trust is a difficult problem on the Internet. Which is why I try to cite references that others can at least navigate to.
I like your writing, and the expository style contributes to my Bayesian-esque estimation of your reliability. (In engineering, we call it an guesstimate.)
(signed)
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
(or am I lying?)
I believe "GeneSplicer" is actually a molecular biologist of some sort, and has also managed to gain much reputation. "Biologist," however, is no such thing. It's the generic problem of Internet anonymity and trust. I might be Rachel Penner, Ron Penner, Rabbi Penner, Rabbit Penner, Robot Penner or President GWB. (The last last appears unlikely if you can decode the rebus in my signature).
Registered users have a potential advantage in the feedback mechanism. Registered users can also conduct audits of other registered users' past posts. But trust is a difficult problem on the Internet. Which is why I try to cite references that others can at least navigate to.
I like your writing, and the expository style contributes to my Bayesian-esque estimation of your reliability. (In engineering, we call it an guesstimate.)
(signed)
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
(or am I lying?)
Does this mean that relativity is dead?
If the relative motion of two objects A and B is determined by their distance from C, as the distance to C moves to infinity the relative motion approaches 0.
Now, if A and B are in a circular orbit around point C, are A and B relatively fixed even though they are moving through spacetime independently? What does that imply?
Sounds goofy, but then goofy is sometimes revolutionary (pun intended.)
If the relative motion of two objects A and B is determined by their distance from C, as the distance to C moves to infinity the relative motion approaches 0.
Now, if A and B are in a circular orbit around point C, are A and B relatively fixed even though they are moving through spacetime independently? What does that imply?
Sounds goofy, but then goofy is sometimes revolutionary (pun intended.)
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 20 2007, 09:38 PM)
(signed)
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
(or am I lying?)
I'M SPARTACUS!!
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
(or am I lying?)
I'M SPARTACUS!!
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 21 2007, 01:38 AM)
...Rachel Penner, Ron Penner, Rabbi Penner, Rabbit Penner, Robot Penner or President GWB. ...
Or this or this or this ???
I would bet my money on this.
I would bet my money on this.
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
Pheeew, thanks for clearing up the matter.
How about this. Forget twins.
Take a rotating body, a disk that is made out of a material with a shelf life of 1 year.
The disk rotates 68% the speed of light.
Eventually, the center, which is at rest, begins to crumble away sooner than the outer edge, which is "aging" more slowly.
How does this affect stars?
Or this or this or this ???
QUOTE
...Rabbit Penner...
I would bet my money on this.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...Rabbit Penner... |
I would bet my money on this.
Lady Chelsea Kensington of Knightsbridge
Pheeew, thanks for clearing up the matter.
QUOTE (x646d63+Feb 20 2007, 09:05 PM)
Does this mean that relativity is dead?
If the relative motion of two objects A and B is determined by their distance from C, as the distance to C moves to infinity the relative motion approaches 0.
Now, if A and B are in a circular orbit around point C, are A and B relatively fixed even though they are moving through spacetime independently? What does that imply?
Sounds goofy, but then goofy is sometimes revolutionary (pun intended.)
DOES THE STATION COME TO THE TRAIN?
DOES THE STATION MOVE THROUGH SPACE TO GET ANY CLOSER TO THE TRAIN?
NO. RELATIVITY IS GONE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
If the relative motion of two objects A and B is determined by their distance from C, as the distance to C moves to infinity the relative motion approaches 0.
Now, if A and B are in a circular orbit around point C, are A and B relatively fixed even though they are moving through spacetime independently? What does that imply?
Sounds goofy, but then goofy is sometimes revolutionary (pun intended.)
DOES THE STATION COME TO THE TRAIN?
DOES THE STATION MOVE THROUGH SPACE TO GET ANY CLOSER TO THE TRAIN?
NO. RELATIVITY IS GONE.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
How about this. Forget twins.
Take a rotating body, a disk that is made out of a material with a shelf life of 1 year.
The disk rotates 68% the speed of light.
Eventually, the center, which is at rest, begins to crumble away sooner than the outer edge, which is "aging" more slowly.
How does this affect stars?
QUOTE (iand+Feb 18 2007, 04:36 AM)
I thought this was a joke. But it's not April 1st. This prof really thinks he's resolved a 'paradox'??? The solution has been known for almost a 100 years.
The Twin Paradox, is just badly named and posed to students. It starts off by posing what seems to be a contradiction. The teacher then challenges his students to think of ways to resolve the 'paradox'. However, the solution to the paradox is well known and the discussion can be found in any text on the relativity. I'm not sure what this LSU prof is supposed to have 'proved'. But its sounds idiotic. It must be a joke.
Each of the twins really do see the other as aging slower. There is no paradox at this point because this is just relativity of time dilation. The reality of the paradox kicks in when the travelling twin turns around and returns to earth. He/she has to undergo an acceleration and is no longer in an inertial frame of reference. He can feel the forces of deceleration and acceleration and there is no doubt about who is moving. This is the General Theory of Relativity in action.
I suggest that this Kak joker read a book on relativity.. or maybe his ex-teachers should let him in on the joke...??
Imagine two twins.
One gets hit on the head with a baseball bat and dies.
Now one is alive, and the other is dead.
Yet they are twins!?!
Resolve that.
The Twin Paradox, is just badly named and posed to students. It starts off by posing what seems to be a contradiction. The teacher then challenges his students to think of ways to resolve the 'paradox'. However, the solution to the paradox is well known and the discussion can be found in any text on the relativity. I'm not sure what this LSU prof is supposed to have 'proved'. But its sounds idiotic. It must be a joke.
Each of the twins really do see the other as aging slower. There is no paradox at this point because this is just relativity of time dilation. The reality of the paradox kicks in when the travelling twin turns around and returns to earth. He/she has to undergo an acceleration and is no longer in an inertial frame of reference. He can feel the forces of deceleration and acceleration and there is no doubt about who is moving. This is the General Theory of Relativity in action.
I suggest that this Kak joker read a book on relativity.. or maybe his ex-teachers should let him in on the joke...??
Imagine two twins.
One gets hit on the head with a baseball bat and dies.
Now one is alive, and the other is dead.
Yet they are twins!?!
Resolve that.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.