0 Members and 35 Guests are viewing this topic.
Einstein's conclusion of an actual difference in registered clock times (or aging) between reunited parties caused Paul Langevin to posit an actual, albeit experimentally indiscernible, absolute frame of reference:In 1911, Langevin wrote: "A uniform translation in the aether has no experimental sense. But because of this it should not be concluded, as has sometimes happened prematurely, that the concept of aether must be abandoned, that the aether is non-existent and inaccessible to experiment. Only a uniform velocity relative to it cannot be detected, but any change of velocity ... has an absolute sense."[37]In 1913, Henri Poincar?'s posthumous Last Essays were published and there he had restated his position: "Today some physicists want to adopt a new convention. It is not that they are constrained to do so; they consider this new convention more convenient; that is all. And those who are not of this opinion can legitimately retain the old one."[38]In the relativity of Poincar? and Hendrik Lorentz, which assumes an absolute (though experimentally indiscernible) frame of reference, no paradox arises due to the fact that clock slowing (along with length contraction and velocity) is regarded as an actuality, hence the actual time differential between the reunited clocks.In that interpretation, a party at rest with the totality of the cosmos (at rest with the barycenter of the universe, or at rest with a possible ether) would have the maximum rate of time-keeping and have non-contracted length. All the effects of Einstein's special relativity (consistent light-speed measure, as well as symmetrically measured clock-slowing and length-contraction across inertial frames) fall into place.That interpretation of relativity, which John A. Wheeler calls "ether theory B (length contraction plus time contraction)", did not gain as much traction as Einstein's, which simply disregarded any deeper reality behind the symmetrical measurements across inertial frames. There is no physical test which distinguishes one interpretation from the other.[39]In 2005, Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University), wrote about the nature of space: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry (i.e., as measured)."[40]In Special Relativity (1968), A. P. French wrote: "Note, though, that we are appealing to the reality of A's acceleration, and to the observability of the inertial forces associated with it. Would such effects as the twin paradox (specifically -- the time keeping differential between reunited clocks) exist if the framework of fixed stars and distant galaxies were not there? Most physicists would say no. Our ultimate definition of an inertial frame may indeed be that it is a frame having zero acceleration with respect to the matter of the universe at large."[41]
The This scenario unambiguously tells that travelling twin ages less than stationary twin, from the perspective of both twins.
This thought experiment can be used to distinguish between Einstein's theory of relativity and Lorentz' theory of relativity.
IMO, Lorentz' is easier to simulate. It doesn't involve any time jump.
I asked ChatGPT...It basically says that acceleration effect on aging is negligible compared to the effect from high speed travelling phase.
In Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, each observer sees the other's clock ticks slower than their own.
They only tick at the same rate when they are in the same frame of reference.
To avoid unnecessary complication, the clocks were built identically using precise mechanism, such as atomic clock.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2025 01:59:44CYou might just solved a problem that had caused disagreements among physicists for more than a century.God knows what they disagree about. The theory of relativity predicts a phenomenon that is supported by measurement, which is the way of physics. Anything else is philosophy.
CYou might just solved a problem that had caused disagreements among physicists for more than a century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#No_twin_paradox_in_an_absolute_frame_of_reference
In 1911, Langevin wrote: "A uniform translation in the aether has no experimental sense. But because of this it should not be concluded, as has sometimes happened prematurely, that the concept of aether must be abandoned, that the aether is non-existent and inaccessible to experiment. Only a uniform velocity relative to it cannot be detected, but any change of velocity ... has an absolute sense."
In that interpretation, a party at rest with the totality of the cosmos (at rest with the barycenter of the universe
would have the maximum rate of time-keeping
In 2005, Robert B. Laughlin (Physics Nobel Laureate, Stanford University), wrote about the nature of space: "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ... The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum."
In Special Relativity (1968), A. P. French wrote: "...Our ultimate definition of an inertial frame may indeed be that it is a frame having zero acceleration with respect to the matter of the universe at large."
As there is ZERO proof or disproof of an aether it has no role in positive science.
No it doesn't since neither twin has any way of knowing which of the two is stationary, and when.
No it cannot since the two are supposed to be empirically identical.
Which reduces it to the method described by the very first reply to the "What is the exact cause of the time dilation of the twin?" thread, except the method described there doesn't require one to know an unknowable thing.The absolutist interpretation is vastly more complicated, and took over 100 years to generalize, as opposed to 11 for the relative interpretation.
Yea, it actually said that. chatGTP is wrong as usual. Excellent source of obfuscation, which seems to be your purpose.
neither twin has any way of knowing which of the two is stationary, and when.
Not true. You're making up nonsense facts. This assertion actually contradicts your spacetime diagrams showing signals being sent between the twins.
It distilled the information from the training datasets. They were trained mostly with mainstream sources.
QuoteQuoteThey only tick at the same rate when they are in the same frame of reference.Also wrong, and it is impossible to not be in a frame of reference under SR.
QuoteThey only tick at the same rate when they are in the same frame of reference.
QuoteTo avoid unnecessary complication, the clocks were built identically using precise mechanism, such as atomic clock.How the clocks work is an engineering problem. It's a thought experiment. Clocks are assumed to not be broken. The twins are the clocks. That's the whole point. Twins are presumed to appear the same age given normal situations, and that appearance is the precision of the experiment, else all you'd need to do is skip the twins and just send clocks. Oh right, they actually did that (a lot, and at super high speeds). Those were not thought experiments.
Given that all versions of the aether theories endow it primarily with the property of velocity, it seems entirely inappropriate to label something without it as aether, as you seem to be suggesting.
French here seems to suggest that acceleration is relative (to matter), and not absolute. It seems that if there were no stars in view, you'd not be able to tell if your rocket engines were on or not.OK, this guy is actually wrong if he actually said this.
Would such effects as the twin paradox (specifically -- the time keeping differential between reunited clocks) exist if the framework of fixed stars and distant galaxies were not there?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2025 12:23:48Would such effects as the twin paradox (specifically -- the time keeping differential between reunited clocks) exist if the framework of fixed stars and distant galaxies were not there? Not sure about the credentials of the writer, but there are no fixed stars! "Fixed stars" is a good-enough approximation for navigational purposes. but they aren't attached to anything, just a very long time away from the solar system.
Word salad, I'm afraid. You can do better, but not if you use crap sources like chatbots and youtube.
Your travelling twin has accelerated, thus breaking symmetry.