Room-temperature superconductivity?

[tomclarke]

And here is a summary of all the direct "twins paradox" tests.

Including criticism of the above test, and thorough demolition of the criticism explaining why it is wrong. You can criticise anything if you don't bother to read the relevant background.

Also a much more recent test.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

Experiments have been conducted comparing clocks flown round the world in opposite directions around the equator in planes. they are at the same height in the gravity well. The difference in time dilation comes from exactly the effect that you say cannot exist.

There is also time dilation from the gravity field, equal in the two cases, and smaller than the velocity affect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2% ... experiment

agreement (from more accurate repeat experiment) to within 1% of classical SR time dilation.

I know this experiment (and related ones) very well and it is inconclusive since both acceleration-deceleration during take-off and landing have been intimately mixed with the intensity of the gravitational field at different heights. Furthermore, the mathematical calculations using a third reference frame (the centre of the Earth) are just plain wrong and are based on an extra assumption in addition to the basic equations that model the Special Theory of Relativity.

Only an experiment during which a clock ONLY accelerates and moves along a straight path WITHOUT any change in the force of gravity along this path can be conclusive. Such an experiment has NEVER been done yet. So I believe that Haefele and Keating knew what they wanted to get and then set out to get exactly what they wanted.

[tomclarke]

Johan,

Experiments have been conducted comparing clocks flown round the world in opposite directions around the equator in planes. they are at the same height in the gravity well. The difference in time dilation comes from exactly the effect that you say cannot exist.

There is also time dilation from the gravity field, equal in the two cases, and smaller than the velocity affect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2% ... experiment

agreement (from more accurate repeat experiment) to within 1% of classical SR time dilation.

I know this experiment (and related ones) very well and it is inconclusive since both acceleration-deceleration during take-off and landing have been intimately mixed with the intensity of the gravitational field at different heights. Furthermore, the mathematical calculations using a third reference frame (the centre of the Earth) are just plain wrong and are based on an extra assumption in addition to the basic equations that model the Special Theory of Relativity.

Only an experiment during which a clock ONLY accelerates and moves along a straight path WITHOUT any change in the force of gravity along this path can be conclusive. Such an experiment has NEVER been done yet. So I believe that Haefele and Keating knew what they wanted to get and then set out to get exactly what they wanted.

But Johan, these experiments are getting 1% agreement with SR effects larger than GR effects. For your theory to beat this you need to predict result equally well, assuming SR effects are 0. Presumably you have a precise theory for the GR effects which differs from standard? Let us see it, and then see how it predicts theese various results.

The classic plane round world tests will be very difficult for you to predict since the GR effects are identical for flights in the two directions, but experimental results are very different.

[GIThruster]

As telling as the physical evidence is, that the twins age at different rates, it should be just as telling that Einstein himself, never held this childish version of "the principle of relativity" that Johan is so intent to defend. And this is why I'm calling his position "simple minded", because indeed, it is this reductionist view of the principle that is wrong, and Einstein knew it was wrong, even before the great gouts of evidence poured in about this over the last century.

The fascinating thing I see in this paper above is that it's clarifying the fine edge of what we know about relativity, with special insights concerning Mach and the Far Off Active Mass. It seems the most conclusive solution to the paradox is cosmological and depends upon the gravitic action of the FOAM. Further, this new theory proposes new, previously unpredicted effects that can be tested experimentally. That holds out the opportunity to discover better what relativity is all about.

[Teemu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2% ... experiment
So when flying eastward the gravity will be larger than on the surface of the earth, so that the time dilation results are −59 ± 10 ns.

But when flying westward, the gravity will smaller than on the surface of the earth, so that the time dilation is 273±7 ns.

That's what is required if you want to do it without special relativity.

I already explained with the triplets and merry-go-around example why it can't matter whether there is a third brother in the center of the merry-go-around, or whether there is atomic clock at the center of the earth. Try to think it as Minkowski space with x, y plane for circular motion and t for time axis. Counterclockwise motion on the circle is same as eastward motion, so eastward flight equals the dot presenting the flying clock going faster in counterclockwise direction than the dot representing the clock left behind. Westward flight, since the plane doesn't fly faster than the earth goes around, is represented by a dot that goes slower counterclockwise direction than the dot representing the clock left behind.

[johanfprins]

But Johan, these experiments are getting 1% agreement with SR effects larger than GR effects. For your theory to beat this you need to predict result equally well, assuming SR effects are 0.

Sometimes a wrong assumption can predict a physical result which is caused by something else. For example, Aharanov and Bohm used a physically-impossible paranormal concept to predict that a double-slit electron diffraction pattern will be shifted by a solenoid between the two slits; and this was observed even though their model is utter nonsense since it violates the mathematics of vector fields.

Presumably you have a precise theory for the GR effects which differs from standard? Let us see it, and then see how it predicts theese various results.

The theory for GR effect (whathever it is) should NOT play ANY role in any experiment on Special Relativity for the experiment to be conclusive. This is exactly the problem with these results: One has to DERIVE the so-called slowing down in clock rate caused by Special Relativity by substracting the estimated effect of gravitation. The appropriate experiment should not require a gravitational correction at all.

I should have stuck to my decision NOT to post until one of you answer my simple-minded question above: Let me repeat: "So here is the next "simple-minded" question: If two identical atomic clocks, each stationary within its own inertial reference frame, keep time at different rates within their respective inertial refrence frames, can the laws of physics be the same within each one of these inertial refrence frames? YES or NO?
PS: There has been quite a lot of discussion above. In order not to respond to red herrings, I will only post again after I have obtained a clear answer on the question that I have just asked."

I WILL NOW STICK TO IT!!! So anybody who wants to post in anticipation that I will answer must first answer this question. So if you do NOT want to answer this simple question PLEASE accept a polite goodbye from me.

[tomclarke]

But Johan, these experiments are getting 1% agreement with SR effects larger than GR effects. For your theory to beat this you need to predict result equally well, assuming SR effects are 0.

Sometimes a wrong assumption can predict a physical result which is caused by something else. For example, Aharanov and Bohm used a physically-impossible paranormal concept to predict that a double-slit electron diffraction pattern will be shifted by a solenoid between the two slits; and this was observed even though their model is utter nonsense since it violates the mathematics of vector fields.

Presumably you have a precise theory for the GR effects which differs from standard? Let us see it, and then see how it predicts theese various results.

The theory for GR effect (whathever it is) should NOT play ANY role in any experiment on Special Relativity for the experiment to be conclusive. This is exactly the problem with these results: One has to DERIVE the so-called slowing down in clock rate caused by Special Relativity by substracting the estimated effect of gravitation. The appropriate experiment should not require a gravitational correction at all.

I should have stuck to my decision NOT to post until one of you answer my simple-minded question above: Let me repeat: "So here is the next "simple-minded" question: If two identical atomic clocks, each stationary within its own inertial reference frame, keep time at different rates within their respective inertial refrence frames, can the laws of physics be the same within each one of these inertial refrence frames? YES or NO?
PS: There has been quite a lot of discussion above. In order not to respond to red herrings, I will only post again after I have obtained a clear answer on the question that I have just asked."

I WILL NOW STICK TO IT!!! So anybody who wants to post in anticipation that I will answer must first answer this question. So if you do NOT want to answer this simple question PLEASE accept a polite goodbye from me.

If you look at the plane experiments you will see that GR effects play negligible part in the difference data. Nothing is perfect, but that is as good as it gets.

The problem is that you are stuck - you cannot predict the difference data without assuming GR effects are several OOM larger than normal. But the results do not allow this.

I'm happy to answer your question, but only if you can give a physically meaningful definition of "keep different rates within their own frames"

For example, you could compare the clocks at two different times. But how is that possible in two different inertial frames?

If the question is not capable of being answered through measurement I consider it physically meaningless, and cannot answer.

[Teemu]

It seems according to both Newton and modern definition inertial reference frame must not be accelerating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_f ... _reference

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating
-----------
Newton viewed the first law as valid in any reference frame that is in uniform motion relative to the fixed stars; that is, neither rotating nor accelerating relative to the stars.

[krenshala]

I'm happy to answer your question, but only if you can give a physically meaningful definition of "keep different rates within their own frames"

For example, you could compare the clocks at two different times. But how is that possible in two different inertial frames?

If the question is not capable of being answered through measurement I consider it physically meaningless, and cannot answer.

This is the part of your arguments that I just cannot follow. I do not see how you can honestly not understand what Johan is speaking of when he talks about the "rate at which a clock ticks". Especially in light of the fact that Johan's use of the term "rate" in relation to the clocks is identical to the use of "rate" in the page (from the desy.de site) you posted. Your posts, to me, appear to be intentional trolling to see how mad you can make him.

His question seems simple enough to me: Are identical clocks in different FOR that are not measuring time at the same rate operating under identical laws of physics? Does that wording make it clearer for you?

[GIThruster]

It seems according to both Newton and modern definition inertial reference frame must not be accelerating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_f ... _reference

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating
-----------
Newton viewed the first law as valid in any reference frame that is in uniform motion relative to the fixed stars; that is, neither rotating nor accelerating relative to the stars.

That's true. SR does not deal with accelerating or non-inertial frames, and this is why some say that the answer to the paradiox is in acceleration and has to be answered by GR.

Turns out this is not so however, because if you accept the acceleration is very short and cope with the situation as most examples do, by looking only at the V of the moving twin, you get this large time differential. The answer is then obviously not tied to acceleration nor GR. It is strictly an SR problem.

[kcdodd]

One cannot predict the age of the non-accelerating twin from the accelerating twin's frame using SR, which is the point of the 'paradox'. Only the accelerating twin's age can be predicted by SR from the non-accelerating twin's frame.

Another way of thinking of this is atomic clocks in the two frames. The twin in the spaceship has radioactive sample that undergoes decay at a well defined rate. The goal is to predict how many decays a similar sample on earth has undergone in terms of the number decays of his sample. Using only SR from his point of view, the number of decays of his sample will always be greater then the number he predicts for the one on earth. The same is true for calculations on earth to try and predict the number of decays experienced on the ship: ergo, there is a paradox when the ship gets back to earth.

The solution is that for the accelerating twin to make the correct prediction, the predicted number of decays of the earth sample jumps from less then his to greater then his during one of the accelerations, which would not be captured by SR.

[johanfprins]

Are the laws of physics the same in any and all inertial refrence frames? YES or NO?

GI Thruster stated: Yes!

Are two clocks that are stationary within two different inertial reference frames subject to the SAME laws of physics? Yes or No?

If YES: then they MUST keep the same time.

If NO: the "Principle of Relativity" is WRONG! And therefore the Special Theory of Relativity MUST be wrong!

SO WHAT DO YOU CHOOSE? SO FOR THE LAST TIME, PLEASE ANSWER MY RELEVANT QUESTIONS!

[GIThruster]

Johan's question is irrelevant. He's continuing to pose the same question because he thinks by this slight of hand, he can get us to forget that though the two frames are inertial, and obey the same physics, the rate of time in both frames is an inverse relativistic function of velocity. It is BECAUSE the two frames obey the same physics, that they keep different time.

This is kiddy high school stuff. The stuff that follows that Johan never gets to, once one notes that indeed, the clocks must and do keep different times, is the part that relativists continually wrestle with. The Machian interpretation is what Einstein himself held, which was to say that "the resolution of the twin paradox is somehow connected with the starry sky”.

Here's another example of the Einstein/Mach solution:

“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. Using probabilistic relationships, Kak’s solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it."

http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html

[DeltaV]

GI, Tom, etc.:
You guys seriously need to learn the difference between dynamics and kinematics.

M. Sachs, Motion in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Comparisons with Classical Views, Journal of Multibody Dynamics 219, 125 (2005)

[Emphasis mine]

p. 6
The Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction
...
That is to say, the spatial measure in the observer’s frame is less than the spatial measure in the moving frame of reference, Δx < Δx’. But this is nothing more than a scale change in the expression of the physical laws in the respective frames of reference. It does not at all refer to a physical change of a material body, such as the shortening of a meter stick that is in motion, by virtue of its motion relative to an observer. The latter ‘physical change’ would require dynamical laws of matter for their prediction. The scale change, on the other hand, is only a kinematic relation.
...

p. 7
Time Contraction
...
That is, the measure of a time change from the observer’s frame in the frame of the moving object is less than the measure in the frame of the moving object itself, i.e.
Δt < Δt’. As in the case of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction of the measures of length, this does not signify a physical change of duration in one frame of reference compared with the other. That is, it does not signify the change of the cell decay rate in the biological aging of a human being in a frame that is in motion compared with the aging of an observer of this human being in motion. Nor does it signify a slowing down of the hands of a clock in the moving frame compared with the clock in the observer’s frame. This is not more than a scale change of the measure of duration in the moving frame compared with the frame of the observer’s clock. For example, to describe the laws of nature correctly in the moving frame the observer may have to put eight digits on the face of the moving clock, rather than the twelve digits on his own clock. But this does not mean that anything physical has happened to the spring behind the face of the moving clock that does not happen to the spring of the observer’s clock! Physical laws of nature of material systems must predict physical changes, not kinematic relations, as are the Lorentz transformations. The paradoxes in relativity theory have arisen (e.g. the twin paradox) when this false interpretation is used in calling the kinematic relations physical relations.

The Twin Paradox
Consider the twin paradox. If we should (mistakenly) interpret the transformation of the time measure (10) as a physical change, then if a twin brother Peter moves away from his brother Paul on a round trip, he would be younger than Paul when he returns. But from the view of Peter, it is Paul who is moving away from Peter and would be younger when he returns. This is a logical paradox since it implies that after the round trip of one of the brothers relative to the other, he would be both older and younger than his brother. But when we recognize the subjectivity of motion (as Galileo discovered) and that the transformation of time measures is only a scale change, used by one or the other brother in viewing his moving brother, there is no paradox because there is no prediction of a change in the aging of a body by virtue of its motion relative to an observer.

[ladajo]

In simple terms could you say this is the same thing as an observer standing stationary in the center of a disk, and watching two entities each at a different radius on the disk, execute the same period of rotation? The observer, not knowing the distance away will see them as moving at the same speed, but in fact, one is faster than the other given the longer displacement for a rotation. The same argument applies to each entity when viewing the others.
A is the guy is the center.
B is the guy is the guy closest to A.
C is the guy farthest out.

A sees B and C moving at the same percieved speed (1 rev per minute), no change in relative postion.
B sees A and C as "stationary".
C sees A and B as "stationary".

In absolute space, A does not move, B is slowly moving, C is moving fast.

They all share a clock, and that clock is (defined by/is) absolute space.

At least this is how I see this in my brain right now. And suddenly I feel like I am babbling out loud.
more coffee...