How Time Passes Differently for Twins Traveling at Light Speed

[Dragongod]

The experiment doesn't necessarily prove that time is relative. It just proves that F=ma and that an increase in force would mean an increase in mass and acceleration. you can't increase acceleration without increasing mass. As something moves over a particular distance it gains more energy. Thats all it shows. If mass and energy could somehow stay constant regardless of acceleration, i don't see how it could, but if it did, neither twin would be older than the other. According to Einstein, one of the twins would still age more. No proof.

My theory (post #88) would still hold up just as Einstein's has. It would be consistant with the experiments thus far because of the reasons I gave in posts #89 and #90. Time exist as dimension that does not exist in the physical realm. The only things we can affect are those that deal with (matter, mass, energy). Time has none of those qualities and therefore cannot be affected. It is not a tangle entity. We can't touch it. It does not change with space, or mass. Time has no mass. It is just a constant that has to exist because we can conceptionally understand it.

Einstein thought Time and Space existed as single entity together. And that is the backbone of all his reasoning for Special Relativity. He arrived at this answer only because he foolishly concluded that space (emptiness according to him) can somehow bend to bodies that have mass or rather large mass. He gave the example of a ball falling on a matress to show this. True the matress bends to the ball but that's only because the matress has mass. Something has no mass cannot bend or curve. Thats like saying that width and depth can exist without taking up space, basically saying without mass. It can't it doesn't make sense. Einstein concluded wrongly.

 

[Janus]

That doesn't prove that the particles are somehow not governed by the same dimension of time. The fact that that happens (particles moving at a faster and rate and living longer than those that are not moving as fast) could be due to the fact that as particles move over a DISTANCE not TIME, they gain more mass and therefore gain more energy. That experiment doesn't necessaritly prove what Einstein was proving - that it is due to different TIMES.

I would strongly suggest that you actually study Relativity before discussing it or trying to rebut it.

 

[DaveC426913]

as particles move over a DISTANCE not TIME, they gain more mass and therefore gain more energy. That experiment doesn't necessaritly prove what Einstein was proving - that it is due to different TIMES.

What does gaining more energy have to do them living longer?



The lifespan of particles before decay are known to many decimal places. If, under whatever circumstances you want, they decay in a longer time, they are, in any way you care to define it, experiencing time dilation.

It's not like particles have a rich life happening in there that we can see how fast their tea goes cold. They are created, they last a time, they die. If we record that they take 25% longer time to die, it's because the time they experienced was dilated.

There *isn't* a better definition of time than that. In fact, particle decay is how we measure time. There simply is no more fundamental measurement than subatomic particles by which we could rate this event.

 

[jdavel]

yogi

"djavel - I do not know what is meant by syncing a clock that flies by - we can read its instantaneous value, but we do not have a way of determining that the flyby clock is actually running at the same speed as the two clocks that were in the same rest frame."

Well, I'm beginning to see why you get so confused about relativity!

"Synching" clock B and A1 as B passes A1 simply means that t' = t for the event "B passes A1". Of course at any later (or earlier) time they won't be equal. Just at that one instant. You can do the same thing with the spatial coordinate, setting x = x' for exactly one event. In fact the Lorentz transforms in their familiar, simple form require that t' = t = 0 and x' = x = 0 for the same single event. In other words, the clocks are synched to zero when the spatial origins coincide.

Does that clear up some of your confusion?

 

[Dragongod]

Janus if i am wrong about anything please correct, i came to this site to learn. Also DaveC426913 that means that u are using a different definition than time than i am. U justify time being relative by saying "They are created, they last a time, they die. If we record that they take 25% longer time to die, it's because the time they experienced was dilated." "There *isn't* a better definition of time than that. In fact, particle decay is how we measure time."
---- this shows that, BY DEFINITION, if I say the electrons LIVE LONGER BECAUSE they gain more mass and energy, you are argreeing with me because you also say that particles can live longer due to particular factors. We have the same definition for two different labels. I define something living longer due to particular factors as having a LONGER LIFESPAN while you define something that lives longer due to particular factors as having MORE TIME. The way I define time has nothing to do with the concept you are speaking concerning time. We are talking about two different concepts using the same label (time). Hopefully i am getting my point across, i know it sounds a little "iffy." The problem here is semantics as it is in most cases.

 

[yogi]

djavel - that is exactly what I said - if that is what you are defining as synchronize - ok - you can do that - a single reading - but synchronized can also mean running together - like synchronous motors, See a dictionary: 1) To render synchronous in operation 2) Having the same period 3) Having the same period and phase

DragonGod - it is true Einstein did not prove SR - he did suggest some types of experiments that he felt would reveal the truth of time differences between moving clocks ...and later as experimental technology developed his predictions were found to be in agreement therewith. But Einstein did not proffer a physical reason as to why age differences occur - your questions in this regard are not outrageous - it is natural to want to relate time dilation to some physical source - your approach is very much like that of Curt Renshaw http://renshaw.teleinc.com/index.asp - who has developed a number of equations that are somewhat consistent with the notion that time dilation in SR is energy related. There are also some energy theories that correlate gravitational time dilation with SR. Tom Martin http://www.gravityresearch.org/ and others have developed this notion in connection with inflow theory

 

[yogi]

Jesse - your post 85 - in theory all observers agree upon the proper length and proper time - distance and time measured in the frame where the clocks are at rest and the rulers are at rest. And yes - if the two clocks are separted in space (e.g. the A frame) - an observer in another frame B moving wrt to A will not see the two clocks as running in sync, nor will this B frame observer be able to correctly measure the distance between the two clocks.

Example: I can agree with the fact that the muon has a 2usec lifetime (a proper time of 2 usec) in every frame, but when it is moving at 0.99c wrt to the earth, I measure it to be greater.

 

[Ich]

Jesse - your post 85 - in theory all observers agree upon the proper length and proper time - distance and time measured in the frame where the clocks are at rest and the rulers are at rest. And yes - if the two clocks are separted in space (e.g. the A frame) - an observer in another frame B moving wrt to A will not see the two clocks as running in sync, nor will this B frame observer be able to correctly measure the distance between the two clocks.

Example: I can agree with the fact that the muon has a 2usec lifetime (a proper time of 2 usec) in every frame, but when it is moving at 0.99c wrt to the earth, I measure it to be greater.

So you think the Lorentz equations are correct, even with this -vx/c² term?

 

[JesseM]

Jesse - your post 85 - in theory all observers agree upon the proper length and proper time - distance and time measured in the frame where the clocks are at rest and the rulers are at rest. And yes - if the two clocks are separted in space (e.g. the A frame) - an observer in another frame B moving wrt to A will not see the two clocks as running in sync, nor will this B frame observer be able to correctly measure the distance between the two clocks.

So are you saying that the "real" answer to the time difference between two clocks separated in space can be found by using length and time measurements in their own rest frame? Does that mean that if two clocks are in motion relative to each other, you think there's no real answer to the time difference between them at any given moment, that only when they come to rest relative to each other can a real time difference be found?

 

[yogi]

Ich: The LT are correct if the postulates are correct since they follow straightaway - but other postulates like those posed by Selleri recogonize two way isotropy (round trip velocity of c constant) but they do not share Einstein's postulate of one way isotrophy - consequently Selleri transforms predict the same time dilation in terms of the correctness of the interval, but they do not include the vx/c^2 factor. Ironically, because of the methodology used in the physical experiments that seek to measure time dilation, this term doesn't get measured (no clock displacement in the relatively moving frame). So, my above statement is based upon the correctness of the LT, which is why I prefaced it with "In Theory"

 

[Ich]

Ich: The LT are correct if the postulates are correct since they follow straightaway - but other postulates like those posed by Selleri recogonize two way isotropy (round trip velocity of c constant) but they do not share Einstein's postulate of one way isotrophy - consequently Selleri transforms predict the same time dilation in terms of the correctness of the interval, but they do not include the vx/c^2 factor. Ironically, because of the methodology used in the physical experiments that seek to measure time dilation, this term doesn't get measured (no clock displacement in the relatively moving frame). So, my above statement is based upon the correctness of the LT, which is why I prefaced it with "In Theory"

So those transforms that you prefer are just the LT without vx/c^2?

 

[jdavel]

yogi,

"...consequently Selleri transforms predict the same time dilation in terms of the correctness of the interval, but they do not include the vx/c^2 factor..."

This is great!

I Googled 'Selleri transforms' and the first hit I tried sent me to one of your posts on physicsforums!

So I tried the next one. That took me to another one of your posts!

At that point I was laughing too hard to try any of the others.

 

[yogi]

Well - what can I say. I assure you selleri transforms exist independent of yogi and google. Below I will give you a link

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1SEL.pdf.

 

[jdavel]

JesseM and yogi,

Sorry about not finishing this; I got side tracked. Let's try it once more.

This time, to avoid confusion about English terminology, let's START by just labeling events (E1, E2...) and giving their coordinates. Then make sure that all events that either of you think are relevant have been included Then make sure we agree that (according to the Lorentz transforms) the coordinates are correct. Only then do we discuss in English what the events correspond to and what their coordinates are telling us.

Terminology:

Two frames S and S' with S' moving at v relative to S
Y = gamma
c2 = c*c
The coordinates of an event En are xn, tn, xn', tn'

So (no earth, no stars, no clocks, no english at all; just some events and their coordinates!)

En...xn...tn...xn'...tn'


E1...0...0...0...0

E2...L...Lv/c2...L/Y...0

E3...L...L/v...0...(L/v)/Y


Are these all the events we need?

Are the coordinates all correct?

 

[JesseM]

JesseM and yogi,

Sorry about not finishing this; I got side tracked. Let's try it once more.

This time, to avoid confusion about English terminology, let's START by just labeling events (E1, E2...) and giving their coordinates. Then make sure that all events that either of you think are relevant have been included Then make sure we agree that (according to the Lorentz transforms) the coordinates are correct. Only then do we discuss in English what the events correspond to and what their coordinates are telling us.

Terminology:

Two frames S and S' with S' moving at v relative to S
Y = gamma
c2 = c*c
The coordinates of an event En are xn, tn, xn', tn'

So (no earth, no stars, no clocks, no english at all; just some events and their coordinates!)

En...xn...tn...xn'...tn'


E1...0...0...0...0

E2...L...Lv/c2...L/Y...0

E3...L...L/v...0...(L/v)/Y


Are these all the events we need?

If you don't discuss what these events mean in english, and what you want to find in english, then we can't really say whether these are all the events you "need." (what do you need them for?) But if we say as before that there are two clocks A1 and A2 at rest in S and synchronized in S, and another clock B moving at v relative to them (at rest in S'), and B first passes A1 (with both reading 0 at that moment) and then passes A2, then these three events will tell you how much time elapses on both B and A2 between the moment when B passes A1 and the moment when B passes A2, in the S' frame. If you want to know how much time elapses on both clocks between the times of these events in the S frame, then instead of E2 you need this event:

E2a...L...0...YL...-YLv/C^2

Since yogi now says he doesn't even agree with the Lorentz transform, I don't see him agreeing with the events you chose.

 

[jdavel]

...Since yogi now says he doesn't even agree with the Lorentz transform, I don't see him agreeing with the events you chose.

JesseM,

Well, he's free to pick any additional events he wants. But more to the point, I don't think yogi is interested in discussing relativity with event coordinates, intervals, etc. He wants to discuss things like "time slippage", "length contraction", "time dilation" and "objective differences". They give him the wiggle room he needs to escape whenever you try to pin him down on one of his errors.