[alancalverd]

the developers will have to correct the answers.

Not possible. The whole point of a chatbot is that it scours cyberspace for anything that looks like information, without human intervention. The quantity of crap increases exponentially as (a) crap begets more crap and (b) crap is not subject to experimental verification and retraction and (c) some crap is compiled by other bots and posted as "research", so the consensus becomes incoherent or  just plain wrong.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the developers will have to correct the answers.

Not possible. The whole point of a chatbot is that it scours cyberspace for anything that looks like information, without human intervention. The quantity of crap increases exponentially as (a) crap begets more crap and (b) crap is not subject to experimental verification and retraction and (c) some crap is compiled by other bots and posted as "research", so the consensus becomes incoherent or  just plain wrong.

Why not? ChatGPT now can correctly count the number of letter R in the word strawberry. As long as the topic gets public attention, there's economic incentive to improve.

[alancalverd]

ChatGPT now can correctly count the number of letter R in the word strawberry.

And my dog, about the same age as ChatGPT, can catch rabbits and lick her own arse, without being taught either skill. This obviously qualifies her as a reliable source on all matters, so I asked her opinion on the "square trajectory" question and she agrees with me. 

[Halc]

What's more important is whether the equations accurately represent physical reality.

How are you going to know either?
1) you seem to have no knowledge of how to apply the equations
2) You seem to be working in complete absence of empirical evidence, the part that represents physical reality.
If you want to deny a theory, first requirement is evidence. I take that back. Evidence is second. First one is knowledge of the theory you're denying, without which you have no idea how the theory explains what the evidence shows.

what was the point of bringing it all up?

To determine if acceleration has any effect on the symmetry breaking in twin paradox, which is the currently most taught explanation.

How is bringing up this funny example going to do that when you don't know what really happens, and you don't know what the theory (the one you're denying) predicts.

Now you seem to be claiming that the most common explanation of asymmetrical paths is asymmetrical acceleration. That may be a true thing, but I've never seen a video bothering to point it out.  The task was not to explain why the paths were asymmetrical, but what causes the differential aging. If a video claims that asymmetry in paths causes differential aging, then it is wrong since several examples were given where paths were very asymmetrical (or acceleration magnitudes or durations were different) and yet no differential aging occurs.
If this wrong explanation of differential aging is the most common one, then it is no wonder that all the chatbots also get it wrong since they gravitate toward the most prevalent crap instead of what's actually correct. No extra weight is given to peer reviewed textbooks over say social media posts, and your personal education material seems to come only from the latter source, and from the chatbots that regurgitate that content.

Also to see if the travelling twin can be a valid observer

Differential aging is an invariant: physical fact, not in any way dependent on coordinate choice or observation. Quantum mechanics has some obscure interpretations where talk about observers being valid or not is actually a question. Under relativity, none of it is dependent on observation. It's not a theory of idealism.

how he views the  time dilation experienced by the other twin.

Time dilation isn't something anybody experiences, per the first postulate of SR.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

ChatGPT now can correctly count the number of letter R in the word strawberry.

And my dog, about the same age as ChatGPT, can catch rabbits and lick her own arse, without being taught either skill. This obviously qualifies her as a reliable source on all matters, so I asked her opinion on the "square trajectory" question and she agrees with me. 

What does she say?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How are you going to know either?

By comparing experimental results with the prediction from each theories.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1) you seem to have no knowledge of how to apply the equations
2) You seem to be working in complete absence of empirical evidence, the part that represents physical reality.

You seem to think that you know better than professional scientists working in this field, including Einstein.

Einstein reportedly said that he "didn't recognize" his theory of special relativity anymore because of how its interpretations and applications evolved far beyond his original formulation. When he developed the theory in 1905, his focus was on solving specific physical problems, such as reconciling Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism with the principle of relativity.

However, as the theory gained widespread acceptance, it became a foundational framework for theoretical physics and was interpreted in ways Einstein had not anticipated, especially in the hands of other physicists. For instance:

1. Mathematical Formalism: Mathematicians and physicists like Hermann Minkowski reformulated special relativity in a four-dimensional spacetime framework. While this interpretation became standard, Einstein initially resisted Minkowski's geometrical approach, as it was different from his more intuitive understanding of the theory.


2. Quantum Mechanics: Special relativity was later merged with quantum mechanics to form quantum field theory. Einstein, who was skeptical of some aspects of quantum mechanics, may have found this integration to be a departure from his original conception.


3. General Adoption and Popularization: The theory became widely accepted and interpreted by the broader scientific community in contexts Einstein hadn't focused on, leading to ideas and discussions he might not have entirely agreed with.



Einstein?s statement reflects the natural evolution of scientific theories: once introduced, they often take on lives of their own, shaped by new discoveries, interpretations, and applications.

ChatGPT

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Now you seem to be claiming that the most common explanation of asymmetrical paths is asymmetrical acceleration. That may be a true thing, but I've never seen a video bothering to point it out.

Don Lincoln's first video mentioned it, and tried to refute it. While Sabine Hossenfelder's video defended it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No extra weight is given to peer reviewed textbooks over say social media posts

How do you know that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Time dilation isn't something anybody experiences, per the first postulate of SR.

How do you reconcile this with your previous statement?

Differential aging is an invariant: physical fact, not in any way dependent on coordinate choice or observation.

[alancalverd]

What does she say?

"You are right, Alan". (my translation)

[alancalverd]

How do you know that?

The most peer-reviewed and authoritative textbook is the Bible, but I don't think ChatGPT thinks the planet is only 6000 years old.   

[paul cotter]

#369: time dilation is a coordinate phenomenon, differential ageing is a real world effect.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How do you know that?

The most peer-reviewed and authoritative textbook is the Bible, but I don't think ChatGPT thinks the planet is only 6000 years old.   

Because many other sources contradict it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

#369: time dilation is a coordinate phenomenon, differential ageing is a real world effect.

This diagram from Wikipedia is supposed to be the established explanation for twin paradox. It predicts apparent time jump in the observation by traveling twin, but no time jump observed by stationary twin. Without this time jump, the time dilation effect is symmetrical, hence caused a paradox.


This apparent time jump is basically like fast forward in record player, as shown when the acceleration during turn around is finite. In this case, the direction of the acceleration of the travelling twin is toward the stationary twin.
If we are willing to accept this explanation, we are forced to also accept reverse time jump or rewind when the direction of the acceleration is away from the observed twin.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Complete Solution To The Twins Paradox

One of the most famous paradoxes of all of physics ? who's older? Who's younger? and WHY?

This video is about the famous ?Twins paradox? of special relativity, how time can appear to be faster for two different observers at the same time, and which twin really is older (or younger) ? the one who stays on earth or the one who flies in a rocket ship to the stars?

This is the screenshot of the video at 2:00 time stamp.

Look at the lines of simultaneity. The video only shows one side of them, i.e. the side where they leave gaps. The other side is where they overlap. This is where the reverse time jump appears in the analysis. I'm preparing my next video to describe this situation.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

If we are willing to accept this explanation, we are forced to also accept reverse time jump or rewind when the direction of the acceleration is away from the observed twin.

    "Reverse Time Jump" --->  It sounds like you're describing something amazing, maybe time travel into the past.  Of course, that's a feature that SR does not exhibit.   So it either isn't that or else it will (probably) be wrong.   Quite a few people have looked for ways to travel back into the past and SR doesn't seem to offer that ability.   However, you're welcome to try again and it's certainly quite educational to give it a go.

Looking at the next post I can now see what this thing you're describing will end up being.

Look at the lines of simultaneity. The video only shows one side of them, i.e. the side where they leave gaps. The other side is where they overlap. This is where the reverse time jump appears in the analysis.

     Although it may sound like you'd be looking at something new, I suspect it's just going to be some re-wording of the Andromeda paradox that you're going to end up with.

Best Wishes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Although it may sound like you'd be looking at something new, I suspect it's just going to be some re-wording of the Andromeda paradox that you're going to end up with.

I think it has similarity with Andromeda paradox. The difference is, the Andromeda paradox is caused by relative velocity, while in my case, it's caused by adequately high acceleration away from the observed object. My analysis shows that it is necessary for two travelling twins with almost completely constant speed at opposite direction to have symmetrical time dilation, and end up with the same age at the end of their journey.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is my second video on twin paradox.

Twin Paradox 2: Reverse Time Jump

Apparent forward time jump during the turn around has been used to explain the discrepancy in age observation between stationary twin and travelling twin.
Now we show the opposite effect when the observing twin is accelerating away. Although they come from the same mechanism, the reverse time jump is less mentioned in the literature.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

   "Reverse Time Jump" --->  It sounds like you're describing something amazing, maybe time travel into the past.  Of course, that's a feature that SR does not exhibit.   So it either isn't that or else it will (probably) be wrong.   Quite a few people have looked for ways to travel back into the past and SR doesn't seem to offer that ability.   However, you're welcome to try again and it's certainly quite educational to give it a go.

Original SR didn't exhibit forward time jump either, nor even the twin paradox in the first place. They appeared as the consequences of further analysis based on the initial assumptions.

Forward and reverse time jump only appear to the accelerating observer  when the observed object is not co-located. The observed object itself isn't affected by the acceleration of the observer.