Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

You have company, I'm lost also. I don't know know where that link came from. The correct link is a Wikipedia article. See under the Possible Experimental Evidence section near the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Dan Tibbets

Thank you for this reference. I tend to agree that this experiment is a roundabout way to measure light speed.

Einstein's gravitational equation is a remarkable equation since Einstein arrived at it by using arguments based on his Special Theory of Relativity: i.e. arguments based on length contraction and time dilation. It is obviously a successful theory in that it predicted the bending of light by the sun, the perihelion of Mercury etc.

But now I am going to throw a spanner in the works by arguing that length contraction of a passing rod does not occur at all. There are also problems with Einstein’s arguments about time-dilation: But this will at first be put on the backburner since such effects can be measured. In contrast, the Lorentz transformation can be used mathematically to prove that there can never be a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. For this we have to go back to the original reason why such a contraction was surmised by Lorentz and FitzGerald. It was invoked to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment: An experiment Einstein ignored to his peril.

According to this experiment, the light travelling along the arm that moves with a speed v relative to the ether, has a light speed from the beginning of the arm to the mirror at the end of the arm given by c-v and a light speed from the mirror to the beginning of the arm of c+v. When you add the times for moving out and back, one obtains a different value than for light moving out and back along another arm that is perpendicular to the arm moving with a speed v. Therefore, a phase difference should be recorded for the two light beams: Which, to date, has never been observed. Lorentz and FitzGerald noted that if the arm moving with speed v shrinks by a certain amount, there will be no time difference and thus no phase difference. Lorentz also used this contraction to derive equations that are at present known as the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz did not interpret these equations as representing a coordinate transformation.

It took Einstein to realise that if the speed of light is the same when measured relative to any moving body, the Lorentz equations can be interpreted as a transformation of position coordinates as well as a time coordinate from one inertial reference frame K(/) to another inertial reference frame K. This of course removed the need for a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction relative to the ether, since for the Michelson-Morley interferometer within any inertial reference frame, the speed of light along both arms will always be c on the way out and on the way in.

But what happens when one observes a Michelson-Marley interferometer which is stationary within K(/) moving past with a speed v relative to K. For 100 years it has been reasoned that the arm moving with speed v, must suffer a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. The reason for this is that light speed is now c relative to K while the interferometer is also moving with a speed v relative to K: Thus we must again have that the light moving to the mirror moves at a speed c-v while, when moving back, it moves with a speed c+v.

But does this really happen? The way to check this is to use the Lorentz transformation and to transform what is happening within K(/) into K. This easily done by synchronising the clocks within K(/) and K at the moment that the light beam leaves the junction of the interferometer on its way to the mirror, and then transforming the coordinates of the mirror when the light beam reaches it also into K. One then obtains a distance L within K and a time interval (delta)t: If one now divides this distance with this time-interval one obtains the speed of the light from the junction to the mirror within K. And guess what one obtains? NOT (c-v) but only c. The same when the light beam moves back to the junction. Thus there are no speeds (c-v) and (c+v) that require a Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction at all. This is as it should be since light cannot move faster or slower relative to any moving body. A rod with a length L(/) moving with a speed v within K(/) will not contract as Einstein has claimed.

I have tried to publish this simple fact for almost seven years, but it has been consistently rejected by editors and referees.

[D Tibbets]

My injections are based on a layman's perspective so I cannot argue deep mathematics and related physics, but I can ask if you can resolve possible observations.

I once argued that special relativity invalidated the Michelson - Morly experiment as a proof against the Either. The professor's only defense was that they didn't know that then. I've never seen this promoted as a reason to revisit the either, except possibly in some evolved string theory (?), so I don't know if it should be embraced or not.

In any case are your views consistent with the Doppler effect and the frame dragging General relativity based effects evident in Global Positing Satellites.

Are you arguing against timer dilatation or only the contraction effect. And does your accounting accomidate not only the lack of contraction, but also the broadening that I understand occurs with this. Are there any experiments that separates these mutual effects- if real?


Dan Tibbets.

[johanfprins]

I once argued that special relativity invalidated the Michelson - Morly experiment as a proof against the Either.

I am not quite following you here. What Special Relativity invalidates is the concept that there is only one specific inertial reference frame within which light speed is c.; as is the case for all other waves moving within a single medium that is stationary when there are no waves within the medium.

The professor's only defense was that they didn't know that then.

I do not understand what he was defending?

In any case are your views consistent with the Doppler effect and the frame dragging General relativity based effects evident in Global Positing Satellites.

Yes they are, but the frame dragging caused by gravitation is in fact a “quantum” or rather wave-mechanical effect.

Are you arguing against timer dilatation or only the contraction effect.

Contraction does not happen at all. Time dilation is also not a real effect in the sense that a clock moving relative to a stationary clock actually ticks slower. This cannot be since the clocks are moving relative to each other and therefore both of them are stationary within their own inertial reference frames. When an observer is with one clock, it only seems to him as if the other clock is ticking away slower. Although the other clock is not actually ticking slower, this apparent slowdown in time has real physical effects which must be taken into account; as in the case of GPS satellites.

And does your accounting accomidate not only the lack of contraction, but also the broadening that I understand occurs with this.

What broadening are you talking about?

Are there any experiments that separates these mutual effects- if real?

In the case of the so-called contraction one can easily prove that there is no contraction by measuring the length of the rod within the reference frame within which it is stationary, and then using a stop watch to measure its length when it moves past at a speed v. The two lengths are exactly the same. This can also be derived from the Lorentz transformation.

[D Tibbets]

The convolutions about the Micheal- Morly experiment involved assumptions that the structure of the either would change the measured speed of the light depending on perspective. This was not seen and so disproved the theory- at least that is my vague recollection. This experiment was done before special relativity was known. SR explains the M-M experiment without needing an absence of an ether. It doesn't require an ether, nor does it disprove it- at least that was my argument.

My impression is that when a particle with mass, space ship, etc. approaches the speed of light it not only shortens, it also spreads out laterally, so that when it reaches the speed of light in a vacuum (if it could)it has a height that is infinitely short, it also has a width (dimension perpendicular to the direction of flight) that is infinitely large.

There is an argument against the recent claim of measured neutrino speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. If gravitational effects were not accounted for, the results may have been wrong. I don't know whether this involves relative distance differences and/ or relative time differences. It seems like either time dilation or distance differences could give the same answer, it is purely up to the observer to choose one, the other, or a combination of both- in other words, it is relative.

Clocks in their own frame of reference of course has the same time measuring rate whether it is measured with a spring, atomic clock or any other available measure(that is within that frame of reference). Without interaction this would be irrelevant as there is no possible comparison between them. It is when they are brought into a common frame of reference that things get interesting. The old space ship to Alpha Centari and back at close to the speed of light analogy. Both twins have lived with their independent clocks seemingly ticking at the same rate, but when they meet, one is eight years older. Did the astronaut twin's clock tick slower, did the distance compress from the perspective of the astronaut - if so why is the stationary twin older? If the stationary twin's sibling traveled a shorter effective distance, why did he take eight years to return? The seeming paradoxes seem to require different relative clock speeds, or different relative distances, or both(?) depending on perspective.

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

Further on the Michelson Morely experiment (note, hopefully spelled correctly this time)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% ... experiment

Einstein and special relativity

The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905,[34] motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether but not, contrary to widespread belief, by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.[35] However the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

Dan Tibbets

[icarus]

So which ticks faster according to the stationary observer;

i) the clock receding at the speed of light (outbound)
or
ii) the clock approaching at the speed of light (inbound)?

[johanfprins]

The convolutions about the Micheal- Morly experiment involved assumptions that the structure of the either would change the measured speed of the light depending on perspective. This was not seen and so disproved the theory- at least that is my vague recollection. This experiment was done before special relativity was known.

Correct

SR explains the M-M experiment without needing an absence of an ether. It doesn't require an ether, nor does it disprove it- at least that was my argument.

Not correct. SR does disprove that there is an ether, filling our universe, within which light waves form. It, however, does not disprove that there might be a uniquely stationary reference-frame; where the latter has nothing to do with the ether.

Before Maxwell derived his differential wave equation for light, this equation was already well-known for other harmonic waves: eg. sound waves through air (longitudinal waves), sound waves through a solid (transverse waves) etc. Since light waves travel through our whole universe, it was postulated that there must be a medium (the ether) that fills our whole universe within which light waves will form.

Since light waves are transverse waves it was postulated that this medium must be akin to a “solid medium”. Such a medium can thus not move within our universe as an entity: It was therefore postulated that the ether must define a unique stationary reference frame relative to which all other inertial reference frames move. Therefore, Michelson and Morley tried to measure the speed of the earth relative to this reference frame, and got a null result.

Lorentz and FitzGerald noticed that the null result can be explained by assuming that the arm of the MM-spectrometer that moves with a speed v shrinks in length. This seems quite plausible for a medium that is akin to a solid. The medium, or ether, thus exerts a drag on the arm which shortens it. This explanation thus still accepts the reality of the ether. Subsequently Lorentz built a whole theory of electromagnetism by invoking the existence of the ether and the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction.

Although Einstein obviously knew about the MM experiment, since he mentioned the failure of attempts to measure the speed of the earth in his seminal paper on SR in 1905, he went back to the most fundamental law on which all physics still rely and which was postulated by the founding father of modern physics: namely Galileo. Galileo argued that if you are within an enclosed “cabin” there is no law in physics that can be used to determine whether one is moving with a constant speed or not moving at all. Einstein brilliantly realised that if there is an ether one can determine whether your enclosed space is moving or not by simply measuring the speed of light. He then argued that from the viewpoint of consistency, there can be no ether since the speed of light must have the same value c when measured within any inertial refrence frame,

As I have mentioned, this does not prove that there is not an unique stationary inertial reference frame within our universe: And in fact the measurements which have been made on the micro-wave background radiation in our universe are consistent with such an uniquely stationary reference frame defined by the micro-wave background radiation. This is consistent with the micro-wave background radiation being stationary standing light waves spanning our whole universe. This, in turn, means that Planck’s analysis of cavity radiation has been correct from the start: cavity radiation consists of standing light waves, and not of “photon-particles” that obey Bose statistics.
.

My impression is that when a particle with mass, space ship, etc. approaches the speed of light it not only shortens, it also spreads out laterally, so that when it reaches the speed of light in a vacuum (if it could)it has a height that is infinitely short, it also has a width (dimension perpendicular to the direction of flight) that is infinitely large.

Not possible since the Lorentz transformation does not change coordinates along the direction which are perpendicular to the direction of motion. In fact when you use the Lorentz transformation, you will find that the transformed object becomes longer but that at "time" now changes along the length of the object. The object becomes wave-like within tyhe intertial refrence frame relative to which it is moving. This is what causes an electron to develop a de Broglie wavelength which is inversely proportional to the momentum of the electron. It also indicates that a stationary electron-wave has nothing to do with a de Broglie wavelength at all.

There is an argument against the recent claim of measured neutrino speeds greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. If gravitational effects were not accounted for, the results may have been wrong. I don't know whether this involves relative distance differences and/ or relative time differences. It seems like either time dilation or distance differences could give the same answer, it is purely up to the observer to choose one, the other, or a combination of both- in other words, it is relative.

In my view this is a hand-waving argument.

Clocks in their own frame of reference of course has the same time measuring rate whether it is measured with a spring, atomic clock or any other available measure(that is within that frame of reference). Without interaction this would be irrelevant as there is no possible comparison between them. It is when they are brought into a common frame of reference that things get interesting. The old space ship to Alpha Centari and back at close to the speed of light analogy. Both twins have lived with their independent clocks seemingly ticking at the same rate, but when they meet, one is eight years older.

I dispute this: They will be exactly the same age. If the one twin “observes” the clock of the other twin, and compares it to his own clock, he will conclude that the other twin’s clock is slower: But this is also true the other way around! So which clock is actually slower?

[johanfprins]

Further on the Michelson Morely experiment (note, hopefully spelled correctly this time)

Morley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% ... experiment

Einstein and special relativity

The constancy of the speed of light was postulated by Albert Einstein in 1905,[34] motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous ether but not, contrary to widespread belief, by the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment.[35]

Correct: I have explained this aspect in my previous posting

However the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment helped the notion of the constancy of the speed of light gain widespread and rapid acceptance.

Also correct.

[johanfprins]

So which ticks faster according to the stationary observer;

i) the clock receding at the speed of light (outbound)
or
ii) the clock approaching at the speed of light (inbound)?

According to the "stationary" observer both clocks will tick slower. But this is also observed by the "moving" observer for the "stationary" observer's clock; since in this case the "moving" observer is now the "stationary" observer relative to which the other observer is moving.

The fact is however that in reality both clocks are actually keeping time at the same rate: Consider the two clocks passing one another at a relative speed v. The clock K will argue that the clock K(p) is moving with a speed v. After a time t has passed, the clock K(p) will be distance D away where D=vt. But clock K(p) will argue that it is clock K that is moving with a speed v away so that after a time t(p), K will be at a distance D(p)=vt(p). But the distance between K and K(p) can only have one value so that D=D(p): Therefore one must have that t=t(p): The clocks have kept exactly the same time.

But if this is the case, why does K experience that K(p) is slower while K(p) experinces that K is slower? Let us look at two observers passing each other with a speed v, and at the moment they pass each other both observers throw a ball into the air. Within both reference frames the balls will move straight up and down. But both observers will see the other ball following a parabolic path This parabolic path does not occur within the reference frame of the other ball.

Similarly, both observers conclude that the other observer's clock is ticking slower while it is actually not ticking slower.

[D Tibbets]

Thanks for your patience with my arguments based on my haphazard knowledge. I'm not conversant with all of your derivations, but I can still trow up arguments that requires resolution.

Other questions. Do you reject the presentations where one twin ages at a different rate than the other (when they reunite in a common frame of reference? A lot of SF and old films demonstrating relativistic effects will have to be discounted.

I'm not sure the Microwave background radiation is a stationary reference. Wouldn't that require that there is a center to the universe- a concept denied by cosmologists?
We are not seeing a hot gas that has cooled over billions of years. We are seeing the hot gas as it then existed in the early universe, but it is far red shifted due to the expansion of the universe. And, the expansion of the universe is not dependent on the speed of light. It may actually be expanding far faster. The speed of light does limit the size/ age of the OBSERVABLE universe.

Finally, without relative time dilation, how can the Muon created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere reach the surface of the Earth when their half live is too short. The explanations I have seen is because they are traveling close to the speed of light and time dilation results in shorter time of flight (or shorter relative distance traveled) within the particle centered frame of reference. When we measure this Muon or it's decay reactions here at the surface of the Earth, aren't we seeing the consequence of the different clock rates- the younger astronaut vs the stay at home twin? Is your view consistent with this?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (their preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays generally continue in about the same direction as the original proton, at a velocity near the speed of light. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km (660 meters) at most (as seen from Earth) the time dilation effect of special relativity (from the viewpoint of the Earth) allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the Earth's surface, since in the Earth frame, the muons have a longer half life due to their velocity. From the viewpoint (inertial frame) of the muon, on the other hand, it is the length contraction effect of special relativity which allows this penetration, since in the muon frame, its life time is unaffected, but the length contraction causes distances through the atmosphere and Earth to be far shorter than these distances in the Earth rest-frame. Both effects are equally valid ways of explaining the fast muon's unusual survival over distances.

Dan Tibbets

[johanfprins]

Thanks for your patience with my arguments based on my haphazard knowledge. I'm not conversant with all of your derivations, but I can still trow up arguments that requires resolution.

I have to thank YOU for keeping at it and thus giving me the opportunity to explain in more detail.

Other questions. Do you reject the presentations where one twin ages at a different rate than the other (when they reunite in a common frame of reference?

Yes I most emphatically do reject this since it can be proved by applying impeccable mathematics to the Lorentz transformation (the latter determines special Relativity) that the clocks of the two twins keep the same time within their respective reference frames, even when these reference frames accelerate relative to each other.

A lot of SF and old films demonstrating relativistic effects will have to be discounted.

Unfortunately yes: I was just as upset when I discovered this since I just loved these SciFi stories. As an avid Trekkie, I am very disappointed that I cannot enjoy watching Star Trek as much as I once did. But there comes a time that one has to accept that Father Christmas does not exist.

I'm not sure the Microwave background radiation is a stationary reference. Wouldn't that require that there is a center to the universe

An excellent question: Firstly there MUST be a centre since the Big Bang started from sincle point; but this centre most probably lies outside our three-dimensional space. But this does not mean that there cannot be a reference frame within our three dimensional space relative to which all other refrence frames move. The latter must be the case in order to explain the "Great Attractor"

We are not seeing a hot gas that has cooled over billions of years. We are seeing the hot gas as it then existed in the early universe, but it is far red shifted due to the expansion of the universe.

Which "gas" are you talking about? The micro-wave background radiation is not a gas.

And, the expansion of the universe is not dependent on the speed of light. It may actually be expanding far faster.

This is correct: But has not yet been explained why it is so. My interpretation that quantum mechanics has NOTHING to do with particles, automatically explains why this is possible.

The speed of light does limit the size/ age of the OBSERVABLE universe.

I agree.

Finally, without relative time dilation, how can the Muon created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere reach the surface of the Earth when their half live is too short. The explanations I have seen is because they are traveling close to the speed of light and time dilation results in shorter time of flight (or shorter relative distance traveled) within the particle centered frame of reference.

The time dilation occurs relative to the earth's reference frame NOT within the the reference frame of the moving muon. Within the latter reference frame the muon is stationary and therefore its lifetime is the same as within a laboratory on earth. It is as I have explained above: A ball launched vertically within its own reference frame moves vertically up and down Within a passing reference frame the ball follows a parabolic path: But this parabolic path does not occur within the ball's own reference frame. Similarly for the cosmic ray muon: It decays at the same rate within its own reference frame than it will within a laboratory on erath, but since it moves at a high speed relative to earth we observe a far longer decay timel even though this is not the decay time within the reference frame of the cosmic ray muon.

When we measure this Muon or it's decay reactions here at the surface of the Earth, aren't we seeing the consequence of the different clock rates- the younger astronaut vs the stay at home twin?

No we do not since the clock travelling with the muon is keeping the exact same time as a clock on the surface of the earth: The observation FROM earth is that the muon lives longer: This is a relativistic effect, just like the parobolic path of a ball is a relativistic effect which does not really occur within the actual inertial reference frame of the ball.

Is your view consistent with this?

Yes it is. That is why the twins will have the exact same age when they meet up in future; even though each of them measured a slower time rate on the other's clock while they were travelling relative to one another.

[DeltaV]

Johan, your view of the twin paradox seems similar to the one held by physicist Mendel Sachs:

http://mendelsachs.com/on-the-twin-clock-paradox/

I have recently been asked if I still believe what I said in my 1971 paper, "Resolution of the Clock paradox" (Physics today, 24, 23 (1971)), in which I presented rigorous logical and mathematical arguments that reject the conventional acceptance of the relation of motion to aging of a physical entity in relativity theory. I said that I still believe what I said in the article. In a subsequent issue of the journal, letters to the editor were published that tried to refute my article (Physics Today 25, 9 (1972)); I responded to all of them.

What the respondents failed to recognize or mention was my main claim: that the letter 't' in the formulas from special relativity, such as the Lorentz transformation, that require a contraction of the time measure in a moving reference frame, is not a physical process, such as the physical aging of a human being or the unwinding of the spring of a clock! Rather, 't' represents an abstract measure of time, such as the reading of the hands of a clock, not the physical unwinding of the spring behind the face of the clock.

- On Unified Field Theories
- M. Sachs - 1966 - ON FACTORIZATION OF EINSTEIN'S FORMALISM INTO A PAIR OF QUATERNION FIELD EQUATIONS
- http://mendelsachs.com/publications/

[johanfprins]

Johan, your view of the twin paradox seems similar to the one held by physicist Mendel Sachs:

http://mendelsachs.com/on-the-twin-clock-paradox/

I have recently been asked if I still believe what I said in my 1971 paper, "Resolution of the Clock paradox" (Physics today, 24, 23 (1971)), in which I presented rigorous logical and mathematical arguments that reject the conventional acceptance of the relation of motion to aging of a physical entity in relativity theory. I said that I still believe what I said in the article. In a subsequent issue of the journal, letters to the editor were published that tried to refute my article (Physics Today 25, 9 (1972)); I responded to all of them.

What the respondents failed to recognize or mention was my main claim: that the letter 't' in the formulas from special relativity, such as the Lorentz transformation, that require a contraction of the time measure in a moving reference frame, is not a physical process, such as the physical aging of a human being or the unwinding of the spring of a clock! Rather, 't' represents an abstract measure of time, such as the reading of the hands of a clock, not the physical unwinding of the spring behind the face of the clock.

Wow!!!! I did not know about him: As far as the twin paradox is concerned we are in TOTAL agreement. Galileo's concept of inertia and Newton's quantification of this concept in his first law, make it impossible for one twin to age faster than the other. It also makes it impossible that Heisenberg's realationship for position and momentum (delta)x*(delta)p=g*(hbar) has anything to do with the "uncertainties" in position and momentum of a "particle".

The only point I disagree with is that the contraction of time is "not real". It is real within the "stationary" reference frame but not within the "moving" reference frame. Thus, although both twins will be of the opinion that the other, moving twin is ageing slower, none of the two are actually ageing slower than the other. It is similar to sayng that a moving body has momentum: It is correct that it has momentum within the reference frame relative to which it is moving, but it has no momentum within its own inertial refrence frame. It is a mind-boggling concept which was already noted by Zeno when he postulated that motion is an illusion. Yes it is an illusion, since the body is actually at rest within irts own inertial reference frame; but this illusion has real consequences within another inertial reference frame. Thus time dilation is an illusion since it does not actually occur within the reference frame of the "moving" twin, but it has consequences within the reference frames relative to which the twin is moving.

The fact that Mendell Sachs came to this correct, conclusion, which can be derived by impeccable mathematics from the Lorentz transformation, and did this already 40 years ago, and did not win the Nobel Prize yet, is another illustration of how rotten physics has become during the past 100 years.

[tomclarke]

Johan, your view of the twin paradox seems similar to the one held by physicist Mendel Sachs:

http://mendelsachs.com/on-the-twin-clock-paradox/

I have recently been asked if I still believe what I said in my 1971 paper, "Resolution of the Clock paradox" (Physics today, 24, 23 (1971)), in which I presented rigorous logical and mathematical arguments that reject the conventional acceptance of the relation of motion to aging of a physical entity in relativity theory. I said that I still believe what I said in the article. In a subsequent issue of the journal, letters to the editor were published that tried to refute my article (Physics Today 25, 9 (1972)); I responded to all of them.

What the respondents failed to recognize or mention was my main claim: that the letter 't' in the formulas from special relativity, such as the Lorentz transformation, that require a contraction of the time measure in a moving reference frame, is not a physical process, such as the physical aging of a human being or the unwinding of the spring of a clock! Rather, 't' represents an abstract measure of time, such as the reading of the hands of a clock, not the physical unwinding of the spring behind the face of the clock.

Wow!!!! I did not know about him: As far as the twin paradox is concerned we are in TOTAL agreement. Galileo's concept of inertia and Newton's quantification of this concept in his first law, make it impossible for one twin to age faster than the other. It also makes it impossible that Heisenberg's realationship for position and momentum (delta)x*(delta)p=g*(hbar) has anything to do with the "uncertainties" in position and momentum of a "particle".

The only point I disagree with is that the contraction of time is "not real". It is real within the "stationary" reference frame but not within the "moving" reference frame. Thus, although both twins will be of the opinion that the other, moving twin is ageing slower, none of the two are actually ageing slower than the other. It is similar to sayng that a moving body has momentum: It is correct that it has momentum within the reference frame relative to which it is moving, but it has no momentum within its own inertial refrence frame. It is a mind-boggling concept which was already noted by Zeno when he postulated that motion is an illusion. Yes it is an illusion, since the body is actually at rest within irts own inertial reference frame; but this illusion has real consequences within another inertial reference frame. Thus time dilation is an illusion since it does not actually occur within the reference frame of the "moving" twin, but it has consequences within the reference frames relative to which the twin is moving.

The fact that Mendell Sachs came to this correct, conclusion, which can be derived by impeccable mathematics from the Lorentz transformation, and did this already 40 years ago, and did not win the Nobel Prize yet, is another illustration of how rotten physics has become during the past 100 years.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this.

The twins are not symmetrical since the one travelling (in order to return) must experience acceleration and shift in FOR.

Therefore he will indeed have experienced less elapsed time on return. But the situation is symmetrical on the outgoing journey.

This has been verified experimentally using Caesium clocks in aeroplanes. It is entirely self-consistent.

But as for which twin is "actually" aging slower than the other. I am not sure this question has any meaning!

[D Tibbets]

johanfprins- I agree the clock rate does not change in the Muon's frame of reference. What changes is the distance traveled within that frame of reference. As the Wikipedia quote pointed out it is all a matter of perspective. To the Earth stationary frame of reference, the clock does appear to tick slower for the muon. But, time dilation or distance compression, one or the other must occur (I think) and both are valid, depending on perspective. I believe that you are completely rejecting distance compression. Thus the muon could not reach the surface of the Earth. Unless you are invoking some convoluted multiple universe situation that somehow interfaces with the Earth stationary universe perspective where the physics are different. Then you could one or the other effect did not exist. Of course, that may be exactly what is occurring. The Universe looks far different to the Muon than it does to the stationary observer on Earth. It is all relative!. What is interesting seems to be the issue of consistency when these two very different frames of reference merge into some observable event. To explain the event (experimental evidence) the theory must accommodate both relative frames, both are valid,
depending on which frame of reference you choose to to reside in. This may seem to imply some anthropomorphic character to the muon- if so, his name is Mark. Since we exist in the Earth stationary frame of reference it is perhaps reasonable to use the time dilation point of view exclusively, but that is a selected bias. And I do not see how that avoids the different aged twin paradox. You have to accept that the astronaut twin either traveled a relatively shorter distance, or he aged slower (along with his spacecraft, clock, etc that accompanied him on his journey). Or, alternately the universe he was traveling in had a significantly different geometry where distances (at least along the direction of travel) was much less. This seems rather mundane to me, it is the interaction when the frames of reference merge that creates the uncertain perspectives and fascination.

As far as the center of the universe, cosmic background radiation comes from the gas/ plasma of the early universe. Without review, my recollection is that this glowing gas phase is after ~ 300 million years after the Big Bang which then over a relatively short period of time (a few thousand or million years depending on how homogenous the plasma was?) the plasma recombined into hot gas. When most of the opaque plasma cooled to a mostly transparent hot gas that allowed the observation of it from a distance. Or, rather make that: allowed the embedded observer to see further than a very short relative (there is that word again) distance.
This expanding gas started from a singularity (or at least from a ball that existed at the end of inflation) and subsequently expanded due to conventional physics, or due to the underlying expansion of the universe. It depends upon what the universe is, a product of it's constituent products, or a thing which contains all observable mass and energy and who knows what else.
In any case it expanded. The best analogy that I have seen repeatedly is a 2 dimensional analogy (three with time) of a balloon surface. As it expands the spots on the surface move away from each other. When we look at the distant galaxies or CBR we are looking along the surface of the balloon, not inside of the balloon or to the opposite side of the balloon. That would imply that the observable universe must = the total universe. Any point on the surface of the balloon has equal rights to call itself the center of the universe, but this a bias based on perspective. Thus the observer is always the center of the universe, unless you recognize that there can be more than one location for an observer and thus no possible defined center. This is actually one of the primary tenants of Astronomy and Cosmology, that we do not occupy a favored position in the Universe.



From DeltaV,s post the referenced argument that the clock speed does not change seems convenient at best and silly at worse. Admittedly this is my impression of the quote and not the entire paper.
The argument is that the perception is that the clock hand is moving slower but the clock works are still moving the same. This only shifts the mystery from the observer clock hand interaction/ observation to the interface between the clock hand as observed by the observer to the clock hand and the clock works (whether a spring or the vibration of an atom). Somewhere there has to be a discontinuity. The argument does not eliminate the effect, it only adds more interactive steps or shifts the effect to a different position in the chain of events. My impression is that the author is arguing that perceived time dilation occurs only in the clock - observer interface, not the clock, ship , etc that is in relative frame of reference. This rapidly degenerates into philosophy. He gives no reason why an astronaut would perceive time as slower, like on an LSD trip and ignores objective measures of time like with atomic clocks and the linked recorders. Or perhaps the recorders are on an LSD trip also. Perhaps he believes the strict Copenhagen view that reality only exists when it is observed. In that case we are all gods and create the universe anew when ever we observe anything. I've always wondered, do I have to look at the Moon for it to exist, of if I read a book about it, does that also create the Moon?
The potential wave aspect of Quantum mechanics that collapses into reality when observed seems rather arrogant. I admit that such convolutions are very useful for consistently predicting results, but that doesn't mean it represents reality.


And, while I am ranting. I don't like Scroider's cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6 ... tShroiders cat

Applied to the 22 year old stay at home and 22 yr old astronaut twins analogy. If the twins remain the same age (they are entangled), which age is the baseline? Assume the astronaut takes off and returns 8 years later (in the Earth based frame of reference), but he has experienced only a few days of time. He meets his brother. Together they then walk through a door to meet a stranger that knows nothing about them. Will this observer see the twins as appearing the same age. Will they be 22 years old or 30 years old. Will they be aged differently. You might argue that the observer is in the same frame of reference as the stay at home twin (and now the returned astronaut twin) the entanglement would favor the stay at home twin(?).

Now assume the observer jumped on a shuttle, and took a near light speed jaunt to meet the returning astronaut. The distance traveled by the observer was only a few light hours(Earth frame). He meets the astronaut within his near light speed frame of reference. The astronaut talks about the several day jaunt to Alpha Centari., and the six meals he had on route. Does the astronaut look young or older (ie- has his body clock changed, forget the clock on the wall), has he starved to death?. The observer then jumps back onto the faster shuttle and returns to Earth. His total travel time from a stationary Earth perspective was only a few hours, short enough that any consideration about his relative speeds can be ignored. He then meets the brothers a few days later after the astronaut twin's ship has decelerated into Earth orbit. Will the astronaut twin now match his brother's age, will he be in a casket because he starved to death? Will his trip to Alpha Centari only be a subjective dream? Will the pictures he took dissapear?

There are all sorts of permutations. Multiple universes might apply, but how is the merger back into one existence handled. Did the observer, by observing both frames of reference, jump back and forth between universes? This sequence of events would seem to require both the time dilation (real, not just perceived) for the stay at home twin's perspective and distance compression from the astronauts relative perspective must both hold. If the distance perspective wasn't real the astronaut would have starved to death. If the time dilation perspective wasn't real the brothers would be the same young age, despite the experience of eight years by the stay at home brother.

There are all sorts of convolutions. The simplest explanation is that both aspects of relativity apply, and the now younger brother returns. Else the multiple universe approach must apply, that is fine in isolation, but is complicated by the observer quickly jumping between both universes and the collapse of both universes into one. I have seen discussions about the multiple universe explanation of reality. But this involves universes splitting based on events, and reality depending on which universe the observer is in. But, to my knowledge there is no accounting for universes merging back together. There can be branching of universes, but subsequent recombination back into one common universe is a different matter. This is like the time traveler killing his newborn grandfather . .
It seems that General Relative is the least difficult answer, and Occam's razor teaches that....

If you don't like people in this analysis, the Muon situation is equivalent. If only the time dilation perspective is applied the younger (not dead or decayed) muon arrives at the detector. If the distance compression perspective is applied the the normally aged muon has traveled a shorter distance in a corresponding smaller amount of time. Mmmm... Time enters into both pictures. Perhaps this is what johanfprins is trying to relate, in which case the confusion is based on how you play with the terms, not the underlying physics. I don't think that resolves the Twins problem though, unless you claim that one of the twins was existing for a time in a different universe. possibly subjective, though that complicates other things. Say the astronaut recorded daily notes with a cheap inkjet ink that mostly faded over a couple of years. Will most of his notes be faded when he presents them at home, will there actually only be a few days of notes, will everyone at home think him crazy?

Dan Tibbets