USER_AVATAR
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: October 17th, 2009, 2:19 am
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Archives
- May 2017
Temp file
   May 5th, 2017, 3:49 am
Why is relativity so hard to learn?[10X]
   May 5th, 2017, 12:13 am

+ December 2014
+ April 2014
+ November 2012
+ October 2012
Search Blogs

Advanced search (keyword or author)

In my prior Post, I have discussed the present scientific view on the relativity of simultaneity and more specifically the misstatement: “the actual one-way speed of light (in vacuum) equals the constant ‘c’ in every inertial frame of reference”. I have shown that Einstein chose it as a very convenient convention and that it is in fact the best convention to choose – it makes the physics “as simple as possible, but not simpler”. In this delivery of Cosmic Engineering, I want to discuss an equally common misstatement about the actual tick rates of clocks in relative inertial motion.

Relativity 'controversy' 2The actual tick rates of clocks in relative inertial motion in free space are necessarily different”. The correct interpretation of the facts is that for clocks moving inertially in free space, it is impossible to determine any tick rate difference, because they can only meet once. In order to compare tick rates, one of the two clock readings must necessarily be done at a distance and then it depends on the convention for clock synchronization that has been adopted.

In the historical “twin paradox”[1], one of the twins is sent on a round trip journey, accelerating quickly to some constant relative speed, maintains that speed for a rather long time, then makes a quick turnaround, flies back at the same relative speed, before decelerating to stop at her brother. This makes it possible to compare their clocks a second time and find any differences in the elapsed times. In the conventional scenario, the ‘away-twin’ will always record less elapsed time on her clock than the elapsed time on her brother’s clock. She is not inertially moving all the time; she changes inertial frames three times and uses energy to do so.

The controversy surfaces when we ask the question: during the trip, when has the away-twin ‘lost’ that time relative to her brother? There is a school of thought saying that it happens progressively as the away-twin travels, but this positions has its problems, as can be shown by very simple logic. Say just before sister ignites here engines to decelerate for the turnaround, we decide that she must rather stay inertial and that her brother must ignite his engines to accelerate and catch up with her, stopping by her side. Now his clock would be the one that has lost time between the two meetings, even if the relative speeds were exactly the same during the two inertial phases of the test. So, whose clock lost what time during which phase? It is impossible to say. All that we can say is that at the end of the test, we can measure whose clock has lost time and how much. If we know the exact test setup in advance, we can also predict the outcome.

There is a vague similarity to quantum mechanics here. Suppose we do not decide in advance which of the twins will do the acceleration, but we ask sister to toss a coin when she nears the turnaround point. Heads and she turns around, tails and she just continuous on inertially. Whatever happens, she lets brother know by radio and when he gets the message, he does the appropriate thing to join his sister – he waits for her, or he fires up his engines. When the test begins, the chances are fifty-fifty and the toss of the coin later decides whose clock will be behind at the end of the test. So for the first part of the test, each clock is running both ‘slower’ and ‘faster’ than the other one, a la quantum particles in a state of superposition. When the result of the toss is known and the choice of test is made, only one state is predicted and subsequently observed.

Since our two clocks are not really quantum-mechanical in nature, the better view is that the proper “relative clock rate” can only be determined between clocks in the same location (collocated) when observed. Any discussion about relative clock rates when they are in relative motion depends on the convention for simultaneity that has been adopted by each clock's frame of reference. There are scientific limits to the range of reasonable simultaneity conventions, but as we have seen in the prior post, there are many of them. Einstein’s convention just proved to be the wisest choice.

--
Regards
Jorrie

[1] AFAIK, the “twin paradox” was originally formulated in 1911 by Paul Langevin.

Last edited by BurtJordaan on April 5th, 2020, 5:15 am, edited 5 times in total.
2 Comments Viewed 3865 times

Comments

Re: Cosmic Engineering (Relativity "Controversy" 2)

Permanent Linkby Dave_Oblad on March 11th, 2013, 11:53 pm

I'm not sure I get this issue. So Sis takes off in a straight line and her clock slows. So she goes inertial and her brother takes off, meantime her clock has and still is running slow. Her brother must go faster than her to catch up with her. So his clock is even slower than hers. If they compare clocks as he passes her, his clock will be behind hers. If he slows down to her speed and jogs his speed to pull up along side of her at the same mutual speed, both clocks should read the same again, even if both are still running slower than when they started. Or am I wrong?
Regards, Dave :^)
Last edited by Dave_Oblad on March 11th, 2013, 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3219
Joined: September 8th, 2010, 9:24 pm
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

Comments

Re: Cosmic Engineering (Relativity "Controversy" 2)

Permanent Linkby BurtJordaan on March 12th, 2013, 12:30 am

This is a valid view, Dave. In the case you described, Brother has expanded more total energy than Sis, so his clock will lag hers, although their clock rates will be the same at the beginning and the end. However, if Sis would have first accelerated en then later decelerated so that she is stationary in Brother's frame and then he does the same, as to catch up and then decelerates and 'park' next to her, their elapsed times would have been the same, provided that they have expanded the same amount of energy changing their inertial frames.

Another way to view it is by looking at the path that each of the twins took through spacetime. Identical path profiles will yield identical elapsed times at the end. The one who deviates most from the original inertial spacetime path will 'age' less - having expended more energy in order to change spacetime path.
--
Regards
Jorrie
Last edited by BurtJordaan on March 12th, 2013, 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
USER_AVATAR
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2830
Joined: October 17th, 2009, 2:19 am
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

Who is online

Registered users currently online: Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot]