The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 278909 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1175 on: 22/05/2013 09:51:40 »
And no, not to me. It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home.
You seem to be confusing time dilation with the age discrepancy when the twins are reunited. Both twins see the other's time dilated during the outward and inward journeys, that's a simple consequence of relative motion. The reason for the age discrepancy at the end is that the travelling twin has undergone asymetrical acceleration. Wikipedia has quite a thorough treatment.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1176 on: 22/05/2013 14:41:50 »
You want the aging to be a result of the equivalence principle right? A higher gravitational field as you accelerate/decelerate. Using this I would refer it to a same principle as standing on a mass, a 'gravity well' locally 'slowing' your time relative a comparison to some other frame of reference. That's not my definition, I use 'c' as a clock. According to my definition there is no such thing as 'time pockets' and your 'time' never change locally. If you want to avoid uniform motion (and I've tried too, as I would prefer a simpler definition) creating a same effect as a acceleration, meaning Lorentz contractions and time dilations, you need to show me how they are non existent in uniform motions.

What will you see close to 'c', uniformly moving, locally defined?

Will a universe contract for you (Lorentz contraction)?
Will there be a time dilation relative other frames of reference (the universe)?

Logically one can ask oneself if it then should matter what type of acceleration one make, as long as they locally give you a same amount of 'acceleration' for that time. Half a G under ten minutes, or one G under five minutes, and I'm sure you can think up other tests of that one.

But the main thing is that I define a local clock as a constant, using 'c', and if that clock defines other clocks to differ from yours local, then it's telling you a local truth, and you have a time dilation. And that's why I find 'motion' so weird too, as well as 'frames of reference'. Locally it's simple. Think this one lifts up a similar description, although from a 'global' point of view. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=425215
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1177 on: 22/05/2013 14:46:37 »
If you tell me that there is no time dilation, but a Lorentz contraction (uniformly moving in a geodesic), you also need to prove that those two isn't complementary btw. Meaning that depending on your choice of coordinate system you can describe it from one or the other, as with the muon.
=

If you use a light clock for it, you can see why they need to be complementary, at least as I think. I'll look for that one and link it. It's a 'geometry' of sorts. And there is one more point. The idea of it being a 'turnaround' that create a time dilation should then ignore the amount of traveling uniformly. So you accelerating for one month, should then present a same amount of time dilation relative that twin, coming back home, no matter how many light-years you traveled uniformly in between. Going at 99 % (uniformly) light speed in a vacuum for ten years, locally defined naturally, should then be equivalent to doing the same for a week, time dilation wise relative that twin (assuming a 'equivalent' turnaround).
« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 16:02:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1178 on: 22/05/2013 15:46:12 »
This is in new theories for a reason dlorde :)
It's my own thoughts.

It may become clearer to see why I look at it the way I do, if you look at what we use to define a experiment. We want it repeatable, under similar conditions. We do it locally, using a local time keeping, using a local ruler. And when the experiment agree for different people doing it 'locally' we find it to be true.

That's the exact way I treat it too, as I think. I define a constant time keeping, and ruler (locally unchanging relative you). I state that all 'frames of reference', locally, must be equivalent. And you need that to make those 'repeatable experiments' true. If it isn't that way you will need to prove what quirk of nature creates those 'repeatable experiments'.

That's not as clear as I would like it. What I mean is that we have unchanging constants, locally defined. They shouldn't change for you, wherever you might go. But we also have have 'motion', and mass, accelerations, 'energy' etc, they becoming parameters too. It's a little as using a mirror, thought wise, turning it around using one definition of constants, not discussing how 'frames of reference' joins into one seamlessly same universe, although I do that too :) hard not too..

So, even though I'm discussing 'relativity', I'm doing it from a very closed perspective, looking at one single frame of reference, trying to find 'constants' that join those. And the only thing I know joining one frame of reference to another is 'c', although you have forces microscopically (matter) that may cover frames of reference too, using Planck scale for defining one. It's my mind game, and it keeps me interested.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 16:09:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1179 on: 22/05/2013 16:17:37 »
Reading you again I'm getting unsure what you mean btw? I define all clocks differing from mine as 'time dilated'. Did you read me otherwise? I'm not discussing a global definition of a universe, so I have no problem with defining it this way.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1180 on: 22/05/2013 17:46:18 »
You want the aging to be a result of the equivalence principle right?

I want the best explanation: one that works physically, fits observation, and has predictive power. I have no preference as to which explanation that might be.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1181 on: 22/05/2013 17:59:41 »
I define all clocks differing from mine as 'time dilated'. Did you read me otherwise?
I'm OK with that, you'll observe a clock in relative motion to be time dilated. When you said :"It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home", I took you to mean, from the context, the difference in their ages at reunion. If you meant that it isn't the acceleration that causes each to see his twin's clock dilated while they are in uniform relative motion, then I apologise for misunderstanding you; but both twins (not just the traveller) see time dilation of the other's clock, and that time dilation doesn't explain the discrepancy in ages once they meet.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1182 on: 22/05/2013 22:28:25 »
True, you and me are alike dlorde. We're both willing to discard what we don't find to work, trying it out :) And that's the way it should be. Pride has nothing to do in science, or in this thread, it only slows one down. On the other hand I'm rather slow as it is :) so that might not be noticeable. As for defining it as a acceleration being the culprit for discrepancy in age, you and me see it differently.

First of all I think I would have to 'split' a Lorentz contraction from a 'time dilation', if defining it as solely accelerations  creating a 'real measurable time-dilations'. Because I see them as complementary effects. And as they exist in a uniform (relativistic) motion too?

Then I only use one frame of reference defining it, and there your clock is defined to be 'c'. So whenever I find another clock to be 'out of sync' with mine I must define that as giving a equal result, locally measured. To do otherwise would make me have to define two types of, let's say, 'slow clocks'. One that is 'real' as in the twin experiment, the other a 'illusion' as in a uniform motion. And I don't know how to define that one. But if I would want it to be only accelerations that create this 'real' discrepancy in age I would, by necessity, need to be able to define how one description from force carriers ( light- 'c') locally measured over frames of reference would be a illusion, while another won't?

A definition using two definitions of a equivalent measurement (clocks) can only relate to a global description in where you then must be able to define why one clock reading would be more 'real' than another.

SR did not use GR to define time dilations and Lorentz contractions, and muon's do not use accelerations as I get it, they come into existence at the speed they are, and where the inertial observer define them as 'time dilated' the 'muon' itself has only one choice, and that is the complementary Lorentz contraction. Well, as far as I can see.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1183 on: 22/05/2013 23:41:32 »
Maybe this one? It's interesting and one can flip to the next page using " [Top] [Intro] [Prev] [Next] " above and under, in the window.
The Twin Paradox: The Equivalence Principle Analysis.
=

And here's a guy I'm enjoying immensely  Spacetime and the Relativity of Simultaneity.

Another way to define it.
« Last Edit: 23/05/2013 00:03:57 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1184 on: 26/05/2013 23:05:22 »
One could look at it this way. Define a arrow as a local constant, equivalent to a locally measured 'c'. You then have a simple definition of what arrow is, for each one of us. Define time dilations as something giving you equivalent 'true' readings relative your local clock, no matter accelerations or uniform motions. I see the arrow as a local constant, treating it as a global 'common' gives in my view the wrong information. And looking at it this way the same must be true for 'c'. Local definitions all, making the global view we think us observe a mosaic. It also makes Einsteins definition of a arrow as a 'illusion' comprehensible, he considered a 'global universe' just as most of the experiments we do, be it QM or relativity. And it is global, as we do communicate, but what we use for defining it is still local constants, well, as I see it :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1185 on: 27/05/2013 11:58:03 »
And then we have the question of symmetries and a closed universe. I mean, they do seem to 'hang together'? Although, maybe that could be considered two ways, globally relative locally? From a global point of view, how can you have the universe as a 'symmetry', if it's not closed? Because most, or maybe all, of what I think I see see becomes 'symmetries' to me? Action and reaction is a symmetry, a photons recoil becomes a symmetry, etc etc.

So, could you have it two ways 'simultaneously'? What about a uniform motion relative a acceleration? Or a 'speed' relative a 'clock'? Ah well, I don't know.

If I would imagine a universe a a symmetry, then I also would need to define what allow that symmetry to be defined as 'work done' etc. Because a symmetry doesn't necessarily state 'changes' to me, I would probably want to define that as something 'time less' , although, to us, caught in the 'middle' of that/those symmetry(ies) it sure does. And that's the problem with ideas, they tend to move from what we see, to what we imagine. And it is possible to imagine this universe as existing without a arrow.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1186 on: 27/05/2013 12:01:13 »
Then again, to do so we first need a universe, like what we exist in. It's from that universe we can define super positions, entanglements, Quantum mechanics, Relativity, speeds and clocks, rulers and dimensions.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1187 on: 27/05/2013 14:21:31 »
... this one? It's interesting and one can flip to the next page using " [Top] [Intro] [Prev] [Next] " above and under, in the window.
The Twin Paradox: The Equivalence Principle Analysis.
They say: "...the Equivalence Principle analysis makes short work of Time Gap and Distance Dependence Objections.  The Time Gap Objection invites us to consider the limit of an instantaneous turnaround.  But in that limit, the pseudo gravitational field becomes infinitely strong, and so does the time dilation.  So Terence ages years in an instant—physically unrealistic, but so is instantaneous turnaround.
Which supports my explanation that it's the turnaround that makes the difference.

Quote
And here's a guy I'm enjoying immensely  Spacetime and the Relativity of Simultaneity.
You'll no doubt have noticed that he explains the Twins Paradox as I have indicated.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 14:26:49 by dlorde »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1188 on: 27/05/2013 15:03:22 »
What I can agree on is that acceleration/deceleration will present more of that 'compared aging', as defined from a inertial observer, dlorde :) What I can't agree on, is if one would define it to be only accelerations/decelerations creating it. And there is a problem more discussing this, as accelerations/deceleration is how we define a 'change' from a uniform motion in SpaceTime. It becomes very hard to find examples ignoring a acceleration involved in different 'relative motions'. That's one simple reason why I use clocks to define time dilations, more or less ignoring the comparative stage, twins meeting again. And the muon example is, to me, one describing it from a uniform motion, not acceleration, although one might want to argue a gravitational acceleration being involved.

You need to see from where I define it. I assume a 'clock' as a local constant, equivalent to splitting 'c' in even chunks of 'time'.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1189 on: 27/05/2013 15:44:47 »
What I can agree on is that acceleration/deceleration will present more of that 'compared aging', as defined from a inertial observer, dlorde :) What I can't agree on, is if one would define it to be only accelerations/decelerations creating it.
...
You need to see from where I define it. I assume a 'clock' as a local constant, equivalent to splitting 'c' in even chunks of 'time'.

Unfortunately, I can't critique your theory or point out where you may have gone adrift, because I haven't been able to follow any of it. I can only point out explicit contradictions of relativity where I see them.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1190 on: 27/05/2013 15:46:19 »
Where you read Michael Weiss to state that it is 'accelerations/decelerations', I read him differently :). I find it easy to argue for my view in that, if we define the 'turnaround' to be equivalent for two travels as stated earlier in this thread, I also would need to presume that it won't make a difference for that 'final comparative twin measurement' what time, locally defined for the traveling twin, he found himself to travel uniformly at relativistic speeds, be it one month, or ten years.

Assuming it to be the acceleration/deceleration solely creating a 'real temporal discrepancy between twins', also assuming the turnarounds being equivalent for both travels, the uniform relativistic motion shouldn't have a importance for our final measurement.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1191 on: 27/05/2013 16:26:54 »
One more thing dlorde, it's not a theory. At most it's assumptions I make. And I will assume that you jumped into this thread, not bothering to read where from I got to those ideas :) which I willingly admit to be quite understandable, considering the amount of posts preceding this.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1192 on: 27/05/2013 17:07:50 »
There is one thing simplifying it possibly.

A twin experiment build on the notion of a 'before' and a 'after', relating to one common frame of reference . The 'before' is where you set the clocks at 'null', synchronizing them with each other (the twins originally). To then 'compare' you must introduce acceleration to allow the traveling twin to return to that 'origin' from where they again can compare their 'biological clocks'.

Defined this way you can't make a same experiment in a uniform motion, as you only will have the possibility of a 'before', meaning our twins, somehow uniformly moving in opposite directions passing each other, momentarily 'at rest' with each other (strictly speaking not even this though), to synchronize their clocks. But they should not be able to join a same frame of reference again to compare clocks after as that must involve accelerations.

(although if now the universe is 'closed' somehow? You might be able to, making me foresee a lot of interesting arguments, and heated discussions :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1193 on: 27/05/2013 19:34:25 »
I can't define it both ways. Either I will trust the readings I get relative my local clock or I won't. If I doesn't then I will need to define what it is that differs in the measurements. Both accelerations, as well as uniform motion, can be defined by me using my local clock, comparing it to 'c' (light clocks), over frames of reference. Using gravitational time dilations we can define it to different 'heights' or 'gravitational potentials', represented by a geometry (gravity as a metric of SpaceTime). Using uniform motion you have a same description, namely a geometry now represented by the relative motion you define that far away object to have, making the light clock traverse more 'space' between 'end points', as measured by you. In both cases I think you can relate it to a geometry though.

Assuming that time dilations are symmetric under SR does not state that they won't exist. Just use different 'relative motions' (versus you) and compare your clock readings. Time dilations must measurably be different, telling you that even though you can define them as 'symmetric' in each isolated 'system' they do differ when comparing 'systems', even in uniform motions, just as one 'relative motion' can differ versus another 'relative motion', as measured relative yourself (the 'inertial observer'). Defining a uniformly moving time dilation from experiments becomes tougher as we can't use uniformly spinning, and we can't 'force' a 'uniformly moving twin experiment'. Although we can use what our clock tells us about other clocks, comparing. In the end it comes down to how you define this universe. If you expect the far away light clocks 'ticks' to tell you that clocks 'local truth', or not. Experimentally though, there are no locally defined time dilations, anywhere. Only the one found comparing your clock to another 'frame of reference'.

Assuming one would like to define ones readings of 'far away clocks' as also being their 'local truth', no matter if one would be uniformly moving or accelerating, should then allow me to, depending on my choice of 'frame of reference' (clock), equivalently so, be able to define myself instead as having a awful lot of different 'local time dilations', simultaneously.

Or you define it to your comparison. Which I refer to as 'relations' between frames of reference, trusting in those experiments that tells you that locally your clock never change pace, no matter where you are, or at what speed relative some other frame.

Doing so, also assuming that all other clocks locally defined behave the same, and as testable by them joining your frame of reference, 'at rest'¨with you. You then are free to use 'c' as your local clock, one 'Plank Length' at one 'Plank time' minimally defined as a 'clock tick'.  And doing so, the arrow becomes a 'illusion' globally, if expected to be of one 'magnitude' over a universe, and a 'constant' related to 'c' locally..
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 19:55:10 by yor_on »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1194 on: 27/05/2013 20:04:20 »
One more thing dlorde, it's not a theory. At most it's assumptions I make.
Sorry, I was careless; I should have said 'ideas'. Confused by the topic title, I guess...

Quote
And I will assume that you jumped into this thread, not bothering to read where from I got to those ideas :)
To be frank, it makes little difference; I can't follow (make sense of) the majority of your posts. No offence intended, but I can't get to grips with your writing style.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 20:19:58 by dlorde »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1195 on: 27/05/2013 20:08:40 »
Then ignore them :)

It's okay, we're all allowed our own taste.
Well, I hope?
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1196 on: 27/05/2013 20:13:05 »
... if now the universe is 'closed' somehow? You might be able to, making me foresee a lot of interesting arguments, and heated discussions :)

That's an interesting question. If the travelling twin follows a geodesic that traverses the closed universe, returning to his point of departure, each twin would see the other apparently much younger due to the uniform time dilation over the whole journey. Quite how that is resolved when the travelling twin decelerates to match frames, I don't know.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1197 on: 27/05/2013 20:18:40 »
Then ignore them :)

No problem - I took the thread title at face value ;)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1198 on: 27/05/2013 20:58:12 »
Well, assuming my definition ones life span should, locally defined, always be the same. And expanding this definition of 'locality' to other frames, the same must go for the inhabitant measuring there. But what those 'frames of reference' would find, comparing their local clock to the other ones? You might imagine them as passing each other twice, very close, a light signal sent from the exact middle in between, setting (synchronizing), to then subsequently stopping, those local clocks. Possibly, that is, not sure how it should work as they are not at rest with each other, going in opposite directions.

And that should then be what I call 'relations' :) giving me quite some headache, as it is a result of comparisons over frames of reference, not related to your 'local arrow, relative life-span', locally defined. And to see how I think one need to imagine this definition true for all 'frames of reference', locally described. It becomes a fragmented universe to me, each frame describing it differently.

It also goes down to how to look at different uniform motions. As describing a difference, or not. From a global perspective, which is the one used, they are measurably of different speeds, although 'equivalent' locally measured. From my 'local definitions' :) they are equivalent though. But then again, I'm just using local definitions, not stating how and why they become the 'common universe' we share. Although I can use 'c' for it, but that doesn't answer it, just describes it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1199 on: 27/05/2013 21:15:17 »
And if you want to up the difficulty one can try to define what a minimal 'frame of reference' should be seen as. We have 'at rest' but people seem to forget that, 'what' is at rest? :) Because using my local definitions and relativity as a whole, a frame of reference should be able to be defined relative motion and gravity. What I mean is that if I would define a frame of reference to a certain 'scale', I then must find all distances, locally measured, over that scale as introducing gravitational time dilations and Lorentz contractions, complicating any description 'globally', as well as 'motion' of course.

But the main point with different relative motions, to me, is that globally described I don't see how I can call them 'relative' any more? if I find them to differ between 'systems', a 'system' being you locally measuring another object in 'relative motion'. It's okay if we only had two objects in this universe, but it's slightly more.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1199 on: 27/05/2013 21:15:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums