Real-Time Physics

Dear Tom,

I found the following reply of you merely on top of the recent posts: "Eckard,

I don't know how Peter Lynds entered this discussion. Did I miss something? I wouldn't have anything to say about that paper anyway, since I find it philosophical, and empty of scientific content.

On this petition re the twin paradox (which is not really a paradox)it sounds like an updated version of "100 scientists against Einstein." As much nonsense as it ever was.

In any case, it is quite obvious from the description of the problem that the difference between a..."

Obviously this is not your complete message. I was pointed to the paper by Peter Lynds there , and I wondered why Peter Lynds listed Lee Smolin. I do not quite share your opinion that the Lynds paper is philosophical. I called already the title bewildering. Perhaps the first one who wrote "universe without begin and end" was Thomas Gold, the same who early understood that the passive traveling wave model of cochlea must be wrong, see my

[link:www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/527] essay "Galilei, Gold, Ren - votes for ultimate reality". A circle has no beginning and no end except for the point on it I might be located at myself. Bewildering to me was something else. The denial of the distinction between past and future.

What about the petition, I suggest you will read that it is not about whether or not the paradox is not a paradox at all but why it is not a paradox. To me NPA was almost like a who is who. I found the names of Lawrence Crowell, John Wheeler, Petr Beckmann, Roland Fritzius, and many others.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

I don't understand the problem. On my computer, my total message shows up as the last post in your 14 April @14;58 gmt thread.

Tom

Dear Tom,

Having read your message now, I would like to decide. Although the mainstream consensus is that the paradox is not a problem and as such has a definitive solution, there is no agreement as to exactly what that solution is. There are

a) Solutions that claimed to employ only the postulates and methods of the special or restricted theory of relativity in which the differential aging effect is due to relative motion.

b) Solutions that invoke the general theory of relativity and, by implication, contend that there is no solution possible from the principles of the special theory of relativity.

c) Solutions that invoke, often implicitly, different or additional assumptions than used in either the special or general theory and, by implication, contend that there is no resolution possible using either theory.

What category does your solution belong to?

I found among those who signed the petition proponents of SR like Wolfgang Engelhardt and Bruce Harvey as well as interesting arguments against it, e.g. by Thim, Phipps, de Mees, Kalmyrov, and ronald.ray.hatch@gmail.com who is distinguished by 24 GPS patents:

Evidence is presented to show that infinitesimal Lorentz transformations (ILTs) contradict the clock hypothesis that acceleration affects the clock rate only indirectly through the resultant velocity. But the clock hypothesis has substantial supporting experimental evidence. It is also shown that the equivalence principle, upon which the general relativity is based, depends on the validity of ILTs. In addition, a fairly simple Moessbauer experiment on the International Space Station is suggested, which would clearly indicate whether or not the ILTs are valid. However, it is also shown that a careful consideration of clocks on the earth already provides equivalent experimental data, which indicates that ILTs are invalid.

Regards,

Eckard

In my modest opinion trying to devide space and time "ad infinitum", leads us only to paradoxes and non-understandable singulairities.

Why ? because our 4-d Univesre has its limits.

For space : the Planck length, for time the Planck time (10^-44sec, result from putting together G (Newtons constant for gravity), h (Planck's constant and c (velocity of light), the velocity of light being the other (local) limit of our universe.

The ultimate rythm of a "clock" depends so on the minimum length of time 10^-44sec, below this unit of time we enter in non causal non deterministic dimension because there one after another is no longer possible, here we meet the boarder of "digital" tieme and analog (experienced) time.

At the local relative velocity of the speed of light time is not progressing, so there is no more "change", we cannot longer compare one situation with another, in fact we are there entering the same "time" (digital) as we are entering after the Planck time and the "clock" is no longer valid.(no changes)

As for the ILT's, it is the adjective I (infinitsemal) that is in my opinion wrong and not appliccable, it is the same as believing in the Big Bang with a singulairity as the "beginning".

keep on struggling

Wilhelmus

After "...patents:" the text on ILTs from "Evidence" to "invalid" was an abstract copied from an article by Ronald Hatch. It can be found via the name Hatch in the list of those who signed the petition. I apologize for the missing quotation marks.

Eckard

Eckard,

You asked, "What category does your solution belong to?"

This question itself is in the category of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Special and general relativity are not two different theories. As the name implies, special relativity is the special case of uniform motion (rate of change). When the theory is generalized to accelerated motion (rate of change of rate of change), there are two considerations that apply to the twin "paradox:"

1. The relation between the fixed point (stay at home) twin and the traveling twin in a straight path, i.e., a linearly accelerated relation. From their inertial frames, each will perceive the other's clock as having slowed. The relation is time symmetric. Each are in an accelerated frame.

2. The relation between the stay at home twin who is not in an accelerated frame, when the traveling twin who is in an accelerated frame, reverses course.

If my previous explanation is not adequate, I don't think I want to take the time to make it better. Those who are unconvinced, due to false assumptions, lack of understanding of relativity, or both, will likely remain unconvinced.

Tom

I was referring to the article on real-time physics in my previous post above. I have not read Hawking's new book, but from the synopsis I read on amazon I see why you are annoyed:

"In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.'"

DON'T PANIC

I read that Adams came up with the number 42 at 'random'. In fact, I noticed 42 is the sum of the sides of two dice. This has always reminded me of the concept of a random variable. The probabilities for the values of the random variable are dependent on the 'uniform' sample space...random tangent.

I started studying physics because I could not accept the more grand claims and conclusions I read about in popular science books. You have mentioned the reification fallacy before and I understand your frustrations. This is Stephen Hawking though he must be right he cites string theory which is the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." What experiments does he propose in the book?

In 42 (1942) the theorist was born who wrote: "We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality." Isn't such utterance cyclic? Wouldn't it be better to start at the indisputable understanding of reality as something prior to all models and theories?

Eckard

I doubt that begging will be enough. I rather see compelling reasons for a unbelievably simple and truly foundational while definitely hurting correction.

Eckard

Yes I did get annoyed, fundamentally it's not 'fair' to direct it at him, though he did gratuitously overdo the 'god' bit, after all he is only repeating the currently accepted view. I also got annoyed with myself, because I should have read his first book 22 years ago (which was much the same) instead of leaving it on the shelf, and I should have pushed myself 40 years ago, but I got depressed.

String Theory, M Theory, etc, etc, if one starts with a flawed premise then one keeps on proposing flawed solutions. Treat the disease not the symptom. As you say Eckard, 'return to basics', ie understand the nature of reality, and then move forward.

Coming on this forum prompted me to consider time and I wrote a page on it. I've now fused the piece on reality with that. It's only 6 pages. I'm about to 'dump' it on my Facebook site. It's the one with the cat, a parody that you'll understand

Paul

Cyclic should read a vicious circle.

Dear Tom.

You wrote: "Those who are unconvinced, due to false assumptions, lack of understanding of relativity, or both, will likely remain unconvinced."

Well, the opponent of SR who made me aware of the petition expressed his hope that the challenge to clarify which of the mutually contradicting variants to justify the twin paradox will overcome just this deadlock. NPA is perhaps more critical towards possible flaws in the very basics as compared e.g. with philsci. Nonetheless, I found in the philsci archives also what I consider more valuable food of thought than your to me enigmatic wife-beating metaphor.

Meanwhile, I have to admit being no longer a neutral judge. I maintain my arguments, in particular the following ones:

- While Poincaré synchronization is a proven old method for objects at rest relative to each other, it is not fair else.

- In case of a twin's round trip, the two intervals with acceleration at the beginning and at the end are independent from the travel with constant velocity back and forth and are to be considered separately. Hence, the putatively different aging cannot be compensated by them. Langevin's paradox is a true paradox as are several others that also prove SR untenable from the very beginning.

Do you read what Nicholas Maxwell wrote?

Regards,

Eckard

Regards,

Eckard

Sorry, Eckard. I shouldn't have used American idiom. "When did you stop beating your wife?" refers to a reporter's unfair question to a politican -- any way in which the politican directly answers the question will put him in a bad light. Either he once used to beat his wife, or he continues to do so. If he answers, "I never beat my wife!" then he either protests too much, or he suspiciously refuses to answer the question. To put it another way, it's a "Heads I win, tails you lose," proposition, which I think is universally understood.

In the context of your question to me, since it's based on a misconception of relativity in the first place, I can't answer the question directly without increasing misunderstanding. You've already made up your mind that relativity is flawed (though it isn't flawed at all) on assumptions that are themselves flawed.

Again, special relativity is not a different theory from general relativity. Just as in geometry a straight line is a special case for a curve, special relativity is a special case of uniform motion while generalized motion (acceleration) is the subject of general relativity.

Because straight-line acceleration from the fixed point (stay at home twin) is directly opposite the moving point (traveling twin), the relativistic effect of time dilation compels each twin to see the other's physical processes as being slowed, from their respective inertial frames, though the physical processes in their own local frame appears normal. So as long as the twins maintain this relation, they each see themselves as growing older and they see the other as staying young.

For the traveling twin to return to the stay at home twin by negatively accelerating and reversing course, she is no longer in a straight line relation to her sister. She joins an acceleration curve in which intervals toward the fixed point shorten in proportion to the rate of acceleration, until the interval is zero and the twins share the same reference frame at which they started. In this frame, the traveling twin is really younger than the stay at home twin ("reality" being defined in the original fixed reference frame) because of the relativistic effect that moving mass ages slower in relation to mass at rest. This effect is well known and well tested; convoluted "logic" aside, the physics is real. And true.

Tom

Dear Tom,

From time to time the media report one more "evidence" for what is misleadingly called theory of reality. The first reason for me to deal with the seemingly never-ending controversy was Hilbert's denial of the obvious fact that as Shannon expressed it the past is known in principle but can definitely not be changed while the future can be influenced but is not known for sure. Secondly I wondered why the Lorentz gamma does not depend on the sign of velocity as does the Doppler effect. Then I disagreed with the round-trip synchronization introduced by Poincaré and adopted without crediting him by Einstein. I looked into Wikipedia articles and textbooks concerning SR, Lorentz transformation and the like. Nowhere I find convincing arguments in favor of LT and SR. Moreover, I should mention that I am familiar with acoustic waves as well as with Maxwell's equations. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to question c as the maximal velocity of propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Admittedly, I am absolutely unqualified concerning questions like quantum gravity, GPS problems and the like. I just realized that e.g. Van Flandern who was perhaps a good expert stated that Galilean electrodynamics is in position to even more easily explain all putatively relativistic effects.

What about the idea that moving mass is aging faster than mass at rest, I wonder how we can attribute a motion just to one of the twins. Isn't there only relative motion between them?

You wrote: "This effect (1) is well known (2) and well tested (3); convoluted "logic" aside, the physics is real (4). And true (5)." Is my logic convoluted? In Parentheses I added the numbers 1 to 5 as to count mere statements i.e. lacking arguments.

As I did not expect the breakdown of communism achievable by means of a single discussion, I do not have similar illusions concerning aleph_2 and SR.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

You wrote, "What about the idea that moving mass is aging faster than mass at rest ...?

Just the opposite. Moving mass ages slower relative to rest mass. That is, physical processes as observed from the rest frame appear to slow down -- but from the moving frame, the rest mass appears to age slower. Because there is no preferred frame of reference, each observer is correct.

The twin "paradox" concerns what happens when one frame is considered fixed and the other moving. The symmetry is broken.

Tom

Dear Tom,

I didn't pay attention to the question of what I consider inconsistent SR related conventionality. Of course, due to the simple Doppler effect each twin perceives the pulse frequency of the other one slower and not higher if the distance between the twins increases while higher if they move towards each other.

However, so called theory of relativity actually breaks with the compelling insight of Galilei, the relativity of motion. If twin 1 is chosen to be the preferred frame of reference then twin 2 seems to age slower in case of growing distance. Just with twin 2 chosen the preferred reference, twin 1 seems to age slower than twin 2, i.e., twin 2 ages faster. Which one is moving, which one is at rest? Be honest and consequent. There is only motion between both twins.

You might argue gamma depends on the squared velocity. Well, in case of a car crash the damaging energy also depends on the squared velocity. However, such a crash is always the irreversible result of decreasing distance.

I conclude that the application of gamma to increasing as well as decreasing distance is definitely nonsensical. In that I agree with Van Flandern. I am merely asking myself: Is gamma justified at all? So far I found out that the mathematical derivations are flawed, and putative evidence has proven untenable.

Einstein provoked a lot of unjustified distrust against the limit to the speed of light. When Nimtz claimed having measured transmission of signals with a speed in excess of c, he attracted a lot of crowd. These people were perhaps not just to lazy as to critically read the original papers and get aware of foundational mistakes in them. I see the root for acceptance of SR and block universe in the belief that the future does already exist in advance but is not yet known to us. Isn't it absurd to stubbornly demand integration over t from minus infinity to plus infinity if measured data are only available for past time? I see Galilean logic at odds with Poincaré's round-trip synchronization.

Regards,

Eckard

Eckard,

You wrote, "I didn't pay attention to the question of what I consider inconsistent SR related conventionality. Of course, due to the simple Doppler effect each twin perceives the pulse frequency of the other one slower and not higher if the distance between the twins increases while higher if they move towards each other."

As I implied, those who don't understand relativity in the first place won't be swayed by explanations that follow directly from the model. Even though relativity clearly illustrates that all motion is relative and there is no preferred Galilean frame of reference, there just has to be "something else" that "makes sense" to one's naive sensibilities. I see it in this forum time after time.

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with the twin problem. RELATIVE motion between the twins in straight line acceleration where each sees the other as staying young (though in their own respective frames they see themselves age normally) implies that there is no preferred Doppler frame. There is no objective third observer, in other words (which is another error some forum participants consistently make).

Only when the traveling twin reverses course, does the aging of each twin appear asymmetrical, because the curved path the traveling twin takes on return to his sister implies decreasing increments of spacetime between them. Now there IS an (arbitrary) fixed reference frame, that of the stay at home twin. That is, the traveling twin speeded up his own aging process (relative to his twin) only at the period of negative acceleration in reversing course; otherwise, his (relative) motion preserves some of the youth that his sister lost.

The physics is straightforward, and I think that's all I have to say about it.

Tom

Dear Tom,

While I shared your agitation for decades, I am sorry if you do not have more to say. You wrote "there is no objective third observer". Well none of the possibly many other observers is "objective" in the sense of to be preferred as neutral reference. However, when you wrote "another error" does this mean you are blaming me for assuming "a preferred Doppler frame"?

Woldemar Voigt was the first who introduced what we are calling Lorentz factor in a paper "Ueber das Doppler'sche Prinzip", dealing not with light but with oscillations within an elastic incompressible medium. More precisely, he started with the constant velocity of propagation for plane acoustic waves.

It does not matter whether I see the relative motion from the "objective" perspective of twin 1 or twin 1. The Doppler effect is measurable and logical the same back and forth and seen from either side unless we break the symmetry of relativity and the separation between past and future by arbitrarily declaring one twin moving and the other one at rest.

My concern is to reveal and remove any unjustified arbitrariness from physics. Our time scale is arbitrarily bound to midnight in Greenwich and the birth of Christ. Isn't the only natural point of reference is the very moment, the border between past and future?

Minkowski introduced so called proper time. Did it prove useful? I cannot confirm any benefit. See Proper_time in Wikipedia. I merely recall proper time that it gave rise to ridiculous science fiction.

Regards,

Eckard

Space-time is a conceptual mistake.Attachment #1: Is_spacetime_a_conceptual_mistake.pdf