FAQ
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:15 am


Author Message
scottrwilson
Post  Post subject: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:20 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:33 am
Posts: 16

Offline
I am not satisfied with the idea that time goes slower for a reference frame in motion, relative to another frame. My initial thoughts come from the Twin Paradox thought experiment, which has various explanations, none of which are satisfying. One explanation involves the Doppler Effect of light and another one talks about some kind of time-jump that the travelling twin must undergo upon turning around to go back.

I have another suggestion, which resolves the Twin Paradox, but does it fit with scientific evidence?

I suggest that when a body (let’s call it Fun) is accelerated away from another body (let’s call it Lazy), the acceleration causes Fun’s slowing of time relative to Lazy’s reference frame. But not vice versa. That is, for Fun, Lazy’s reference frame has speeded up, not slowed down as we are led to believe by Special Relativity. This resolves the Twin Paradox.

The big question is whether any of the experimental evidence contradicts this rule. Does anyone know of any such evidence that may contradict it?

Alternatively, can anyone resolve the Twin Paradox?


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:33 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 515
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
The old "I don't understand so so it must be wrong let's make some stuff up" gambit :roll:

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:41 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 276

Offline
Is this link any use to you?


http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_42.html (go down to 42–6 The speed of clocks in a gravitational field-about 2 thirds of the way down the page)

I think acceleration does have time dilation effects but so does ,separately relative motion

I have been told that it is not acceleration that is responsible for the Twin Paradox but am not in a position to say why.


Top
scottrwilson
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:45 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:33 am
Posts: 16

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
The old "I don't understand so so it must be wrong let's make some stuff up" gambit :roll:


Well, no, I didn't say it must be wrong. However, if you have any solution for the Twin Paradox, let me know. I'm simply asking, does the evidence necessarily point to the accepted view of Special Relativity, or does it also fit with my suggestion.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:47 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 515
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Why do cranks feel the need to invent new interpretations when it is obvious they don't understand the standard one?

Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox read it. Properly, before making stuff up. Why do you think anyone will take your interpretation seriously? It's clear you don't know what you are talking about... Why not spend your time learning physics rather than trying to reinvent it?

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
scottrwilson
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:58 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:33 am
Posts: 16

Offline
geordief wrote:
Is this link any use to you?


http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_42.html (go down to 42–6 The speed of clocks in a gravitational field-about 2 thirds of the way down the page)

I think acceleration does have time dilation effects but so does ,separately relative motion

I have been told that it is not acceleration that is responsible for the Twin Paradox but am not in a position to say why.


I didn't want to deal with General Relativity yet (or maybe ever) so I think your link may not be relevant for my specific idea.

I had thought of a similar thought experiment to the Twin Paradox, where instead of a traveller going away from the Earth, we have 2 spaceships together, one goes into a circular motion about the other, at very high speed, then returns. As far as I can see, time should have gone more slowly for the traveller, just like in the Twin Paradox. But there is still a paradox according to Special Relativity. Thus can't be resolved by jumps in time or by the Doppler effect (as far as I can see).


Top
scottrwilson
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:02 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:33 am
Posts: 16

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
Why do cranks feel the need to invent new interpretations when it is obvious they don't understand the standard one?

Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox read it. Properly, before making stuff up. Why do you think anyone will take your interpretation seriously? It's clear you don't know what you are talking about... Why not spend your time learning physics rather than trying to reinvent it?


That's not really fair to be honest. I have already read them, among many others, and do understand them. Firstly, they give different opinions for how the paradox is resolved. Secondly, none of them actually do resolve it.

One describes that “When one transfers from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming inertial frame there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.”

This doesn’t in any way explain the paradox. What is a “jump discontinuity” and why would an acceleration cause such a thing? There is really no explanation here.

Another says “As mentioned above, an ‘out and back’ twin paradox adventure may incorporate the transfer of clock reading from an "outgoing" astronaut to an "incoming" astronaut, thus entirely eliminating the effect of acceleration”.

This is nonsense, as if a clock is transferred from astronauts moving in opposite directions, obviously the incoming astronaut must have previously accelerated relative to the Earth-based twin, therefore they are running at a slower rate of time already, so therefore acceleration MUST still come into it!!!


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:05 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 515
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Crackpot :shrug:

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
scottrwilson
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:28 pm

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:33 am
Posts: 16

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
Crackpot :shrug:


No problem, I'll assume you don't understand them either.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 8:44 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 515
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
The assumptions of cranks are of no consequence... I'll leave you to it...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
janus
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:11 pm

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 36

Offline
scottrwilson wrote:
I am not satisfied with the idea that time goes slower for a reference frame in motion, relative to another frame. My initial thoughts come from the Twin Paradox thought experiment, which has various explanations, none of which are satisfying. One explanation involves the Doppler Effect of light and another one talks about some kind of time-jump that the travelling twin must undergo upon turning around to go back.

I have another suggestion, which resolves the Twin Paradox, but does it fit with scientific evidence?

I suggest that when a body (let’s call it Fun) is accelerated away from another body (let’s call it Lazy), the acceleration causes Fun’s slowing of time relative to Lazy’s reference frame. But not vice versa. That is, for Fun, Lazy’s reference frame has speeded up, not slowed down as we are led to believe by Special Relativity. This resolves the Twin Paradox.

The big question is whether any of the experimental evidence contradicts this rule. Does anyone know of any such evidence that may contradict it?



Doppler shift. If your interpretation were correct, then Fun would see a different Doppler shift for Lazy than Lazy sees for Fun.

Put another way, Doppler shift would be dependent on the absolute motion of both observer and source, rather than just the relative velocity between them ( As per Relativistic Doppler shift).

The evidence that this is not the case involves a "fix" NASA had to apply to compensate for a communication protocol error between an orbiter and a surface probe on the Moon of one of the Gas giants. There was a frequency drift between the two, so in order to correct for it, NASA altered the orbit of the Orbiter so that for periods, its velocity with respect to the lander was such that the Doppler shift between the two corrected for the drift.

Now here's the thing, by using the Relativistic model for Doppler shift, they only had to account for the relative velocity between the orbiter/lander pair. Under your interpretation, the Doppler shift would change depending on their absolute motion. Since we were dealing with a orbiter traveling around a moon, that was orbiting a planet, that itself was orbiting the Sun, NASA would have had to be constantly readjusting the orbiter to compensate for Moon's constantly changing position in its orbit and the resulting change in its absolute velocity. But this is something they never had to deal with.


Top
anticorncob28
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:58 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:31 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Nebraska, USA

Offline
If I'm mistaken anywhere here, please correct me (and please don't be mean about it).
scottrwilson wrote:
One describes that “When one transfers from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming inertial frame there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.”

This doesn’t in any way explain the paradox. What is a “jump discontinuity” and why would an acceleration cause such a thing? There is really no explanation here.

A jump discontinuity is a sudden, instantaneous change. For example the function y = |x|/x has a jump discontinuity at x = 0, where it jumps straight from -1 (when x < 0) to +1 (when x > 1).
You need to understand that speed is relative, but acceleration is not. If we're traveling down the highway and I observe you behind me traveling toward me at 2 miles per hour, you can equally argue that I'm traveling backward toward you at 2 miles per hour. And somebody on the ground can equally argue that you're going 62 and I'm going 60.
But suppose that you see a deer and suddenly hit the brakes. You feel the acceleration, and you cannot argue that you are actually not moving and I am speeding up ahead of you. Note that unless you went from 62 to 0 instantly, this is not a jump discontinuity.
Similarly, symmetry is broken in the twin paradox when one instantaneously turns around by the star; in your example Fun cannot argue that he stood still and Lazy suddenly stopped and turned around. And this is a jump discontinuity.
This new frame of reference observes the earth at a later point in time. If the traveling twin were to slow down, stop, and then accelerate back he would observe the earth aging faster than usual during this acceleration, and light would travel faster than c (this is no contradiction, since light must travel at c only from an inertial frame of reference). When you jump instantaneously from one inertial frame to another, the earth jumps instantaneously from a past to future point (from your frame of reference).

Here's a way to think of age jumping (and relativity of simultaneity): suppose ink stamps are printing a 12-inch ruler onto a belt of paper that is moving at a speed close to that of light. The stamps all press onto the paper at once and produce a 12-inch ruler onto a moving belt of paper that is length contracted, and the ruler will grow longer once the paper stops.
But from the point of view of an ant on the piece of paper moving toward the ink stamps, the length of the ink stamps has shrunk to something less than 12 inches, and so when they push down the ruler is less than twelve inches. When the paper stops, nobody can agree on the length of the ruler. Paradox? No.
What happens from the ant's perspective is that although the ink stamps have shrunk, they don't all hit the paper at the same time. The ones further away hit first, and the ones closer hit later, and since the inks are moving toward you this makes the ruler longer.
From a bystander's point of view, the ant sees further into the future the further he looks ahead, as he sees the further ink stamps hit first.
Similarly, when moving toward the earth you observe it at a more distant point into the future than when you were moving away from it. So the jump in age is just part of relativity, like time dilation and length contraction.

_________________
"Climate change is the canvas on which the history of the 21st century will be painted."
-Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet


Top
Schmelzer
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:02 pm

Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 5:53 pm
Posts: 1

Offline
scottrwilson wrote:
I am not satisfied with the idea that time goes slower for a reference frame in motion, relative to another frame.


I would recommend you to use, instead, the Lorentz interpretation of relativity. It is simply another interpretation of special relativity, and known to be equivalent to for all physical observable effects.

In the Lorentz interpretation you can forget about all those frames in motion. Moving clocks go slower, moving rulers contract. These are real physical effects. Real distances and real time is not influenced by this - but, once our methods to measure them are distorted, and, moreover, all in the same way, we cannot measure true time or true distances. Or, more accurately, we can measure them if we guess, correctly, what is really in rest.

For interested physicists: What I do here is to follow Bell's paper "how to teach special relativity". Recommended reading.


Top
me_again
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:04 am

Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:54 am
Posts: 10

Offline
The problem with the reciproce predictions and the supposedly equivalent frames in SR, is this :

Only the clock in the frame which received an extra energy input, experimentally shows to have lost seconds.
(e.g. the train clock, never the station clock).
Hence coordinate speed is merely a bookkeeping device of ficticious debet-credit.

On


Top
HandofGod
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:26 pm

Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:09 pm
Posts: 36

Offline
scottrwilson wrote:
PhDemon wrote:
Why do cranks feel the need to invent new interpretations when it is obvious they don't understand the standard one?

Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox read it. Properly, before making stuff up. Why do you think anyone will take your interpretation seriously? It's clear you don't know what you are talking about... Why not spend your time learning physics rather than trying to reinvent it?


That's not really fair to be honest. I have already read them, among many others, and do understand them. Firstly, they give different opinions for how the paradox is resolved. Secondly, none of them actually do resolve it.

One describes that “When one transfers from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming inertial frame there is a jump discontinuity in the age of the Earth-based twin.”

This doesn’t in any way explain the paradox. What is a “jump discontinuity” and why would an acceleration cause such a thing? There is really no explanation here.

Another says “As mentioned above, an ‘out and back’ twin paradox adventure may incorporate the transfer of clock reading from an "outgoing" astronaut to an "incoming" astronaut, thus entirely eliminating the effect of acceleration”.

This is nonsense, as if a clock is transferred from astronauts moving in opposite directions, obviously the incoming astronaut must have previously accelerated relative to the Earth-based twin, therefore they are running at a slower rate of time already, so therefore acceleration MUST still come into it!!!

Mr Wilson, time dilation and special relativity has been proved on several occasions . You are arguing that countless experimental results are incorrect that ''work''. If it were not for this our GPS systems would not work. I suggest you do not understand it Mr Wilson or you would not be arguing about it authenticity.
It quite clear that the travelling twin experiences less time than the twin at rest, therefore ages less. Only if you were to define time differently than radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz could you have such notions about time dilation being incorrect. But our definition of the rate of time is just that.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Alternative view of Special Relativity  |  Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 103

Offline
HandofGod wrote:
Only if you were to define time differently than radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz could you have such notions about time dilation being incorrect.

Meaningless rubbish.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy