Paradox within the twin paradox

[JesseM]

Let me pose this question to you then and see if you can answer it:

If I am moving slower than the speed of light

In absolute terms, or relative to some frame? If you are moving at 0.8c in absolute terms, this is a fact that could only be known by God or other supernatural beings, there'd be no empirical experiment you could do that would demonstrate you were moving at an absolute speed of 0.8c rather than an absolute speed of 0.5c or even 0. On the other hand, if you are only claiming that you are moving at 0.8c in the inertial rest frame of some other object like a planet, then this is a well-defined physical claim that can be tested empirically, but it doesn't imply there is such a thing as absolute motion.

And if I am moving at a fraction of the speed of light, then how is it possible that my speed is not absolute?

If you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms, then of course this presupposes that you do have an absolute speed. But of course there is no reason for a skeptic about absolute time and space to believe "you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms" is true in the first place! They don't believe you have an absolute speed at all!

 

[JesseM]

Not in "Physics" terms. In "Special Relativity" terms. Special Relativity only deals with the relative aspects of reality.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Relativity uses relative quantities like velocity and time dilation in its calculations, but the whole point of using them is to make predictions about absolute frame-independent facts, like the proper time a given clock will elapse between two events on its worldline, or a fact about whether two objects will collide, or what G-force some object will measure on an accelerometer, etc. In fact Einstein once tried to get people to use the term "invariance theory" in place of "relativity theory" because the physical "meat" of the theory is in its calculations of invariant quantities like proper time, and the term "relativity" often confuses people in exactly this way.

 

[teachmemore]

Huh? What am I failing to see? I already acknowledged you are free to introduce the idea of absolute time and space, I just pointed out that you hadn't explained clearly that this was what you were doing, and also that I don't personally believe in such an entity.

Can you be more specific about what you think I have said that is wrong or confused?

No I didn't, you are obviously misunderstanding something. All I suggested was that we can change the timing of when each counter starts sending signals, and this will change the fact about which counter has received more signals when they meet. This needn't change the fact about which counter is in a state of absolute rest and which is in a state of absolute motion, it just means that in absolute terms they sent their first signals non-simultaneously rather than simultaneously (though in relative terms, they did send their first signals simultaneously in the rest frame of the traveling counter, it's just that this frame's definition of simultaneity does not match with absolute simultaneity). Since human experiments will have no way of knowing which counter is "stationary" in absolute terms (even if we, in our godlike role as the ones who define the thought-experiment, do know that), they will have no way of knowing it is more "accurate" to program the counters to start sending signals simultaneously in the first counter's frame rather than in the second counter's frame.

That's a statement of metaphysical faith on your part, akin to saying "there is definitely a God" or "there is definitely an absolute truth about which counter is 'further to the left' in an absolute sense, not just relative to some observer". I am agnostic about God but very skeptical about the idea of "absolute left" or "absolute time", they seem like totally superfluous metaphysical ideas to me, much easier to just adopt an eternalist ontology where all points in spacetime are equally real and there is no need for any absolute truth about simultaneity.

If you want to do a thought experiment which assumes there is such a thing as absolute space and time I'm happy to go along with that for the purposes of discussion, even though I don't really believe in such notions. Again, nothing I said required changing the definition of which counter was "really" moving or which clock was "really" ticking slower.

Huh? No it wouldn't, not even if absolute time and space existed. How can you rule out the idea that the Earth was already moving at some large speed, say 0.8c, relative to absolute space? You're not a geocentrist are you? If you agree there's no way any human could rule out such a possibility, then obviously if the rocket accelerated away from the Earth in the opposite direction from the direction the Earth is moving in an absolute sense, then as the rocket accelerates its absolute speed will decrease, not increase. (Perhaps the word 'acceleration' is confusing you, in physics the term simply refers to any change in speed whether an increase or a decrease, and even if there was such a thing as absolute speed, if relativity is correct acceleration at 1G should feel exactly the same regardless whether your absolute speed is increasing or decreasing. Didn't you agree earlier that even if absolute motion exists, there would be no experimental way to determine which frame is the absolute frame?)

OK. Ya. I totally screwed up there in claiming the direction could be arbitrary.

 

[teachmemore]

In absolute terms, or relative to some frame? If you are moving at 0.8c in absolute terms, this is a fact that could only be known by God or other supernatural beings, there'd be no empirical experiment you could do that would demonstrate you were moving at an absolute speed of 0.8c rather than an absolute speed of 0.5c or even 0. On the other hand, if you are only claiming that you are moving at 0.8c in the inertial rest frame of some other object like a planet, then this is a well-defined physical claim that can be tested empirically, but it doesn't imply there is such a thing as absolute motion.

If you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms, then of course this presupposes that you do have an absolute speed. But of course there is no reason for a skeptic about absolute time and space to believe "you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms" is true in the first place! They don't believe you have an absolute speed at all!

OK. So your claim is that any statement made about the possibility of absolute speed is a belief. One way or the other.

 

[teachmemore]

In absolute terms, or relative to some frame? If you are moving at 0.8c in absolute terms, this is a fact that could only be known by God or other supernatural beings, there'd be no empirical experiment you could do that would demonstrate you were moving at an absolute speed of 0.8c rather than an absolute speed of 0.5c or even 0. On the other hand, if you are only claiming that you are moving at 0.8c in the inertial rest frame of some other object like a planet, then this is a well-defined physical claim that can be tested empirically, but it doesn't imply there is such a thing as absolute motion.

If you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms, then of course this presupposes that you do have an absolute speed. But of course there is no reason for a skeptic about absolute time and space to believe "you are moving at a fraction of the speed of light in absolute terms" is true in the first place! They don't believe you have an absolute speed at all!

Wait a second here. I am making a general statement about all relative frames. I did not say anywhere that these relative frames could have knowledge about their precise speed. I'm only stating that by the very principles of special relativity, they have to be moving at a speed slower than light speed. Since light speed is an absolute, then by saying that anything can move slower than light speed implies that it is moving at an absolute speed.

 

[teachmemore]

1. Let's start by saying that all we know is that the speed of light is absolute and c.

2. Now, all relative frames in the universe have to be moving at an absolute velocity between -c and c; by the very principles of special relativity ( no frame can reach c, which is an absolute speed)

3. It then follows that all relative frames in the universe are moving at a speed between (exclusive) c and -c relative to c.

My point is that the theory of special relativity cannot be logically conceptualized without first conceptualizing speeds relative to c, which is an absolute speed.

 

[HallsofIvy]

1. Let's start by saying that all we know is that the speed of light is absolute and c.

2. Now, all relative frames in the universe have to be moving at an absolute velocity between -c and c; by the very principles of special relativity ( no frame can reach c, which is an absolute speed)

3. It then follows that all relative frames in the universe are moving at a speed between (exclusive) c and -c relative to c.

My point is that the theory of special relativity cannot be logically conceptualized without first conceptualizing speeds relative to c, which is an absolute speed.

No, it is not. That seems to be your basic problem. You have referred to "absolute speed" repeatedly but have not defined that phrase. What do you mean by "absolute speed"?

 

[teachmemore]

No, it is not. That seems to be your basic problem. You have referred to "absolute speed" repeatedly but have not defined that phrase. What do you mean by "absolute speed"?

Thank you. Thinking about this made me realize that in order to define an absolute speed relative to c, c would have to be reachable. Since it is not, I can't seem to be able to define it.

 

[teachmemore]

I can't thank you all enough for bearing with me.

I need to take some time, like maybe a few weeks, to contemplate all this stuff to determine whether everything here is clear to me.

 

[teachmemore]

Thank you. Thinking about this made me realize that in order to define an absolute speed relative to c, c would have to be reachable. Since it is not, I can't seem to be able to define it.

Wait a second here. c can be reached. It just can't be breached.

here is my definition of the absolute speed of a reference frame.

First I define the absolute stationary reference frame:
Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

Now the absolute speed of any reference frame is their speed as measure from the absolute stationary reference frame.

Is that a sufficient definition?

 

[matheinste]

Wait a second here. c can be reached. It just can't be breached.

here is my definition of the absolute speed of a reference frame.

First I define the absolute stationary reference frame:
Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

Now the absolute speed of any reference frame is their speed as measure from the absolute stationary reference frame.

Is that a sufficient definition?

Apart from any other misunderstanding of physics, such as light being at rest in a medium, how do you know what the motion of the medium is with respect to which the light is at rest?

You can conjure up any defintion you like as an aid to calculation or understanding, but that does not make that definition a description of reality.

Matheinste.

 

[teachmemore]

Wait a second here. c can be reached. It just can't be breached.

here is my definition of the absolute speed of a reference frame.

First I define the absolute stationary reference frame:
Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

Now the absolute speed of any reference frame is their speed as measure from the absolute stationary reference frame.

Is that a sufficient definition?

Hmmm. This just shows that the two light pulses are in the same reference frame.

 

[jtbell]

Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart,

What are you referring to, here? If you're thinking of those experiments which slowed down and stopped (or nearly stopped) light pulses traveling through a material object or medium, then the medium itself becomes a preferred frame as far as the motion of light is concerned. But this is not an absolute frame because you can have two different chunks of material moving with respect to each other.

 

[teachmemore]

Apart from any other misunderstanding of physics, such as light being at rest in a medium, how do you know what the motion of the medium is with respect to which the light is at rest?

You can conjure up any defintion you like as an aid to calculation or understanding, but that does not make that definition a description of reality.

Matheinste.

Hey, I did not claim the light was at rest! Where did you get that idea?

 

[matheinste]

First I define the absolute stationary reference frame:
Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

There.

Matheinste.

 

[cavalier3024]

ok, so first, you can't define an absolute speed since there is no such thing as 'speed relative to C'. that is because no matter how fast you are moving, you will always see the light moving at the same speed, C.

about the paradox - its really simple. So you say that there are two clocks, A and B, that are moving toward each other.
form A's point of view A is stationary and B is moving towards him at a certain speed.
from B's point of view B is stationary and A is moving towards him at the same speed.
so far we have a symmetry, and it is true that each will see the other ticks slower. but the symmetry is broken when you say that the clocks start at the same time, because the term 'same time' is reference frame related. if you mean that A 'sees' them starting at the same time (i.e that in A's reference frame they start simultaneously). then B will not see it that way! B will 'see' his clock starting much later then A's clock!
so:
*from A's view, the clocks started at the same time, and B's clock ticks slower. when they meet B have less ticks.
*from B's view, A started before B. so even though and A's clock ticks slower, B will still show less ticks when they will meet. just like A is seeing it. no paradox.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Furthermore, although due to the laws of special relativity, we can never truly know which frame in the universe is the true stationary frame (at least I can't comprehend a way in which we would determine this). We can conceive a stationary frame, and it does not go against any known laws of physics for such a frame to exist - an absolute stationary frame. Again, special relativity does not say that such a frame does not exists, only that without prior knowledge, you can not determine whether you are in it.

You are absolutely correct in everything you said in this paragraph, except that I would not have made the restriction "due to the laws of special relativity", I would have said "due to the facts of nature".

Now here is what you need to understand about special relativity. Since we cannot know which is the absolute stationary frame, we can arbitrarily pick any inertial reference frame and assume that it is the one and only absolute stationary frame that only Mother Nature knows about and everything will be consistent and behave according to all the laws of nature and we will have no way of knowing if we picked the "wrong" absolute stationary frame. Mother Nature won't tell us if we are wrong and she appears not to care.

But note, you have to assume that this is the one and only reference frame. You cannot talk about any other reference frame. You have to specify everything in terms of this one frame that you selected.

Now, if you want, you can decide that you don't like that reference frame anymore and you want to pick another arbitrary one that is defined relative to your first one. Then you use the Lorentz Transform to rebuild eveything from your first frame so that it is now defined correctly in your second frame and you treat it as the one and only absolute stationary frame that only Mother Nature knows about and again, everything will be consistent, etc, etc, etc.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that multiple reference frames co-existent at the same time, such as the people on Earth are in a stationary frame and the people on the rocket ship are in a moving frame. If you do that, you will have to transform everything from one of those frames into the other frame before you can meaningfully discuss what is happening.

 

[teachmemore]

There.

Matheinste.

There is a big difference between light being at rest and light being trapped in a frame of reference. One is not possible and one is. What I claimed is completely possible under the laws of physics.

 

[teachmemore]

ok, so first, you can't define an absolute speed since there is no such thing as 'speed relative to C'. that is because no matter how fast you are moving, you will always see the light moving at the same speed, C.

about the paradox - its really simple. So you say that there are two clocks, A and B, that are moving toward each other.
form A's point of view A is stationary and B is moving towards him at a certain speed.
from B's point of view B is stationary and A is moving towards him at the same speed.
so far we have a symmetry, and it is true that each will see the other ticks slower. but the symmetry is broken when you say that the clocks start at the same time, because the term 'same time' is reference frame related. if you mean that A 'sees' them starting at the same time (i.e that in A's reference frame they start simultaneously). then B will not see it that way! B will 'see' his clock starting much later then A's clock!
so:
*from A's view, the clocks started at the same time, and B's clock ticks slower. when they meet B have less ticks.
*from B's view, A started before B. so even though and A's clock ticks slower, B will still show less ticks when they will meet. just like A is seeing it. no paradox.

As you describe B 'sees' them as starting at the same time. Everything is done from B's reference frame.

I altered it slighly though to make the end points effectively at the same point in space. ie. the reference frames are touching so that they exchange data instantly.

This was done through a hypothetical device which exists in the same reference frame as clock/counter B, but at the same position as the clock/counter A when it passes the device. Counter B knows the distance of this device relative to itself and can therefore calculate the elapsed time since B was 'switched' by A.

Do you see? Normally, B would receive the first pulse from A, telling B that A had started at a point in time when from A's reference frame, it had already started ticking. BUT, through this device, B's frame of reference is physically in contact with A at the moment it starts ticking, so that through B's frame of reference, information is sent to B about the earlier time in which A started, all through direct physical contact.

The difference between your thought experiment here and mine, is that both reference frames are touching one another at both end points, when the clock A starts, and when the clocks meet and touch one another in space. This allows information to be sent to clock B, that it would otherwise not have access to.

Edit: So I guess the question is - how does instant traversal of data between reference frames at the two end points affect the problem?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

I also cannot understand what you mean by the two pulses of light "no longer moving apart". Are you thinking that the medium slows them down until they get trapped and eventually stop?

Please explain.

 

[teachmemore]

I also cannot understand what you mean by the two pulses of light "no longer moving apart". Are you thinking that the medium slows them down until they get trapped and eventually stop?

Please explain.

It is not that important, since this definition is incomplete, but ya, what I meant was that two two pulses of light are trapped within the same frame of reference. As to how the light is trapped there, it is unimportant. It could be by particle absorption, or by being reflected between theoretically perfect mirrors - doesn't matter.

 

[teachmemore]

I also cannot understand what you mean by the two pulses of light "no longer moving apart". Are you thinking that the medium slows them down until they get trapped and eventually stop?

Please explain.

Eventually stop? Sorry? No that is impossible. I just meant that they become trapped at a fixed distance apart from one another, which would imply that they are in the same frame of reference.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Wait a second here. c can be reached. It just can't be breached.

here is my definition of the absolute speed of a reference frame.

First I define the absolute stationary reference frame:
Lets say you have light traveling in two opposite directions, c and -c. Now when both these pulses of light are trapped in medium and no longer moving apart, they are both in the absolute stationary reference frame.

Now the absolute speed of any reference frame is their speed as measure from the absolute stationary reference frame.

Is that a sufficient definition?

It is not that important, since this definition is incomplete, but ya, what I meant was that two two pulses of light are trapped within the same frame of reference. As to how the light is trapped there, it is unimportant. It could be by particle absorption, or by being reflected between theoretically perfect mirrors - doesn't matter.

Well it does matter if you have some incorrect or incomplete concepts of matter, time, space and light, and their relationship to a frame of reference.

I'm wondering why you would think in any sense that "two pulses of light are trapped within the same frame of reference" and not think that about everything else, all matter is equally trapped within the same frame of reference. But then, the same two pulses of light are also trapped in any other frame of reference along with all matter. I just don't know why you are thinking about things being trapped. You need to explain.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Eventually stop? Sorry? No that is impossible. I just meant that they become trapped at a fixed distance apart from one another, which would imply that they are in the same frame of reference.

You think that two pulses of light traveling in opposite directions "become trapped at a fixed distance apart from one another"? Why do you think this?

 

[teachmemore]

You think that two pulses of light traveling in opposite directions "become trapped at a fixed distance apart from one another"? Why do you think this?

Firstly, the definition was using the scenario of two pulses of light becoming trapped at a fixed distance apart; no statement was being made about what would happen if two arbitrary light pulses were sent in opposite directions.

Secondly, the definition is incomplete, because the scenario is insufficient to define an absolutely stationary reference frame, so there is no need to dwell on it.

Do you not believe that it is possible for two beam of light to become fixed at a distance between one another? If so, please explain why it is not theoretically possible.

 

[matheinste]

There is a big difference between light being at rest and light being trapped in a frame of reference. One is not possible and one is. What I claimed is completely possible under the laws of physics.

My physics is a bit rusty but I thought that light in a medium still traveled at c and that absorption and re-emission processes caused the overall delay. What you mean by trapped in a medium, or at a certain distance apart in a medium I cannot even guess. However, I am no expert on such matters, but I do have a query: if light is at rest or trapped in a medium, how would we see it.

Matheinste.

 

[teachmemore]

Well it does matter if you have some incorrect or incomplete concepts of matter, time, space and light, and their relationship to a frame of reference.

I'm wondering why you would think in any sense that "two pulses of light are trapped within the same frame of reference" and not think that about everything else, all matter is equally trapped within the same frame of reference. But then, the same two pulses of light are also trapped in any other frame of reference along with all matter. I just don't know why you are thinking about things being trapped. You need to explain.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time with the word trapped. It just means confined to a fixed coordinate or set of coordinates within the frame of reference.

All matter IS at a fixed coordinate within a frame of reference. It does not need to be "trapped" to remain there because it is part of the frame of reference. Light on the other hand always travels at c relative to any frame of reference; hence, it must be trapped to remain at a fixed coordinate within the frame of reference. In a sense, absorption of light into matter accomplishes this feat. Or, creation of matter from light, as has been done in high speed particle accelerators.

 

[teachmemore]

My physics is a bit rusty but I thought that light in a medium still traveled at c and that absorption and re-emission processes caused the overall delay. What you mean by trapped in a medium, or at a certain distance apart in a medium I cannot even guess. However, I am no expert on such matters, but I do have a query: if light is at rest or trapped in a medium, how would we see it.

Matheinste.

We would not be able to see the trapped light pulse.

An example of a trapped light pulse is the "light clock" regularly used in special relativity thought experiments.

Edit: Another example would be an absorption process where the light is permanently absorbed as part of the particle; and is not re-emitted. Usually, photons will be re-emitted, but we have no way to tell that those photons are the same photons that were absorbed - I mean, at least not by standards of modern physics - maybe one day someone will come up with a theory that will allow us to find out such detailed information about the process of photon absorption and emission.

 

[teachmemore]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue of information being exchanged between reference frames that are in contact in space? ei. like my example of a device which is switched by a passing rocket?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Firstly, the definition was using the scenario of two pulses of light becoming trapped at a fixed distance apart; no statement was being made about what would happen if two arbitrary light pulses were sent in opposite directions.

Secondly, the definition is incomplete, because the scenario is insufficient to define an absolutely stationary reference frame, so there is no need to dwell on it.

Do you not believe that it is possible for two beam of light to become fixed at a distance between one another? If so, please explain why it is not theoretically possible.

You started off by saying two pulses of light were traveling in opposite directions. I guess from other posts you are simply saying that while they are light, they are traveling and have no fixed coordinates but when they hit something, then they have a fixed distance between them. Is this correct?

Now you are asking about two beams of light "to become" a fixed distance between one another and the confusion starts all over again. To me (and I think everyone else) a pulse of light is what you get when you turn a laser (or some other light source) on and off and a beam of light is what you get when you turn a laser (or some other light source) on and leave it on. The only way in which your question would make sense to me is if you were thinking of two lasers a fixed distance apart but otherwise aimed in the same direction and you turn them both on. Then the two beams would be parallel a fixed distance apart. But, somehow, I don't think this is what you had in mind because you used the expression "to become" and I suspect you are still thinking in terms of the beams being pointed in opposite directions. It is really important when discussing SR that we have a clear understanding of what light does so please explain what your concepts are.

 

[matheinste]

We would not be able to see the trapped light pulse.

An example of a trapped light pulse is the "light clock" regularly used in special relativity thought experiments.

.

Hardly light at rest though.

As regards absorption, if a photon is absorbed I think it does not remain a photon, but its energy is absorbed raising the energy level or levels of bits within the atom by which it is absorbed.

But most of this is irrelevant to a definition pseudo absolute motion.

Matheinste.

 

[teachmemore]

You started off by saying two pulses of light were traveling in opposite directions. I guess from other posts you are simply saying that while they are light, they are traveling and have no fixed coordinates but when they hit something, then they have a fixed distance between them. Is this correct?

Now you are asking about two beams of light "to become" a fixed distance between one another and the confusion starts all over again. To me (and I think everyone else) a pulse of light is what you get when you turn a laser (or some other light source) on and off and a beam of light is what you get when you turn a laser (or some other light source) on and leave it on. The only way in which your question would make sense to me is if you were thinking of two lasers a fixed distance apart but otherwise aimed in the same direction and you turn them both on. Then the two beams would be parallel a fixed distance apart. But, somehow, I don't think this is what you had in mind because you used the expression "to become" and I suspect you are still thinking in terms of the beams being pointed in opposite directions. It is really important when discussing SR that we have a clear understanding of what light does so please explain what your concepts are.

Ya sorry. I meant pulse, not beam.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue of information being exchanged between reference frames that are in contact in space? ei. like my example of a device which is switched by a passing rocket?

Your concept of a reference frame is all mixed up. It is not something physical. It is a co-ordinate system that we use to describe and analyze situations. All inertial reference frames extend in all directions throughout all of space and go from eternity past to eternity future. It doesn't make sense to ask about frames that are in contact because all frames cover all space.

You can take the situation involving all of your objects described in one frame and use the Lorentz Transformation to see what it would look like in another frame but there is no sense in which the frames come in contact.

Now if you want to talk about exchanging information between two observers that are traveling with respect to one another, there's no problem with that, as long as you limit the speed of information exchange to c. You don't have to actually build such a device, or be concerned about the practicality of such a device, all you have to do is say that observer A sends a coded light beam to observer B and it travels at the speed of light in the reference frame that you have defined the motions of the two observers. You don't have to get more complicated than that.

 

[teachmemore]

Hardly light at rest though.

As regards absorption, if a photon is absorbed I think it does not remain a photon, but its energy is absorbed raising the energy level or levels of bits within the atom by which it is absorbed.

But most of this is irrelevant to a definition pseudo absolute motion.

Matheinste.

Ya. The light is not every at rest. agreed.

And ya. as far as light absorption, who the hell knows what happens to it. It is all just speculation. We only know that it it can both be incorporated into the particle and that the particle can be converted into light and emit light by e=mc^2.

 

[cavalier3024]

As you describe B 'sees' them as starting at the same time. Everything is done from B's reference frame.

I altered it slighly though to make the end points effectively at the same point in space. ie. the reference frames are touching so that they exchange data instantly.

This was done through a hypothetical device which exists in the same reference frame as clock/counter B, but at the same position as the clock/counter A when it passes the device. Counter B knows the distance of this device relative to itself and can therefore calculate the elapsed time since B was 'switched' by A.

Do you see? Normally, B would receive the first pulse from A, telling B that A had started at a point in time when from A's reference frame, it had already started ticking. BUT, through this device, B's frame of reference is physically in contact with A at the moment it starts ticking, so that through B's frame of reference, information is sent to B about the earlier time in which A started, all through direct physical contact.

The difference between your thought experiment here and mine, is that both reference frames are touching one another at both end points, when the clock A starts, and when the clocks meet and touch one another in space. This allows information to be sent to clock B, that it would otherwise not have access to.

Edit: So I guess the question is - how does instant traversal of data between reference frames at the two end points affect the problem?

if i understand you correctly, the purpose of this hypothetical device is to help synchronize the two clocks A and B?
if so, it doesn't really provide a solution, and to explain why i need to first see if we agree about relative simultaneity. what i say is that if from A's point of view two events happen at the same time, then from B's point of view they will happen at different times (and vice-versa).
so if the two events are A's counter starting and B's counter starting, then it is impossible that both A and B will think that those events happened at the same time.
either from B's point of view it will happen at the same time and from A's view B's clock started sooner, or the other way around.
do you agree with that?