About "a New Light In Physics"

[martillo]

Here in the "Alternative Theories" forum, which is of course intended to discuss theories alternative to those of the mainstream, I would like to receive opinions on any of the many topics of my called "A New Light In Physics" work directly available at: www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics.
It was developed some years ago in times I participated in this and other forums discussing some topics about it. Time have passed and I would like to listen the opinions from this forum at this time.
Please take in consideration that because of my daily work generally I could not answer properly until afternoon.

 

[A-wal]

I got as far as this "Then two inconsistencies were found because of contradictory results." and then stopped because that's a misunderstanding that invalidates the rest of that section at least. There is no contradiction!


"This means that for each twin the other one age less. They both would see themselves with a long beard and the other one without it."

This is correct.


"Now from the referential at the mother-ship both twins are observed aging the same and in a different amount since for it they travel at velocity v and not w. The mother-ship would see both with a “half beard”."

Also correct. What's not correct is that this is in any way a contradiction. This is just the standard twin paradox that really shouldn't be called a paradox because it blatantly isn't one. For there to be a genuine contradiction, this: "This means that for each twin the other one age less.") would have to apply when the twins are back in the same frame of reference and that doesn't happen. If they accelerate equally so that they're back at rest with the mother ship then each sees the other aging rapidly to catch up with themselves and they're both the same age again when they're at rest relative to each other but both are younger than their triplet that stayed on the mother ship and didn't accelerate.

Well done for using the mothership. Too many thought experiments don't use an object in between the accelerating objects to compare to, makes it so much easier to illustrate what's going on.



Could be worded better...


"The mother-ship goes there, brakes and stops remaining there."

It stops remaining there? :) You mean 'The mother-ship goes there, brakes and stops, remaining there.' Leave it out because it's not needed. There's no such thing as absolute motion, it brakes (accelerates) relative to what? If it's inertial (not accelerating) then it's already at rest in that reference frame.


"After that, two small space-ships with twins"

Sounds like each ship has twins on board, or the two ships mated and had twins.


"Space-ships"

Never seen it written like that before, looks weird.


"may be synchronized by the mother-ship that is at equal distance from them"

Maybe's one word but it shouldn't be used here, using the mothership is the only way of doing it properly.


"After that, they turn their space-ships in the opposite direction and at some time (may be synchronized by the mother-ship that is at equal distance from them) they accelerate and travel back in a second symmetrical travel deviating a negligible little (to not collide) just to pass very near of them and the mother-ship at the same instant but they don't brake."

Not nice wording. Also don't say brake, there's no such thing in this context. They accelerate in the opposite direction.


"referentials"

Inertial reference frames, referentials sounds wrong even though it isn't.

 

 

Edit:

""Now from the referential at the mother-ship both twins are observed aging the same and in a different amount since for it they travel at velocity v and not w. The mother-ship would see both with a “half beard”."

Also correct."

 

I should correct this. The mothership would see the twins with less than a full beard but more than a half beard because the time dilation and length contraction between the mothership's frame and the two twin frames is than than half of what it is between the twin's frames.

Edited October 28, 2016 by A-wal

[martillo]

I'm foreign, don't expect right grammar. To be understood without doubts is what I pretend.

 

Three contradictory photographed observations of the same reality at the same time. This is totally and inadmisible inconsistent.

 

Thanks to find it an interesting way to present the problem.

Edited October 28, 2016 by martillo

[A-wal]

Fair enough if you're not bothered by grammar, it's perfectly readable.

 

Three contradictory photographed observations of the same reality at the same time. This is totally and inadmisible inconsistent.

There is no contradiction! Twin A sees twin B as younger and twin B sees twin A as younger but they're in completely different reference frames.

 

You don't need the photograph, it adds nothing. When an observer looks at another they're taking a mental 'photograph'.

[martillo]

There is no contradiction! Twin A sees twin B as younger and twin B sees twin A as younger but they're in completely different reference frames.

 

How couldn`t be? I mean, is not about to observe differently from different frames of observations, is about to observe contradictory things. The reality is the same for any frame so there cannot be contradictory observations in any of them. The fact that one twin has beard and the other not is totally different from the inverse situation. They are mutually exclusive possibilities. If one is true the other is not, is false. No other way.

[A-wal]

You're applying single frame logic to multiple frames where doesn't apply.

 

In A's frame there's no contradiction (B has no beard, A does), in B's frame there's no contradiction (A has no beard, B does), in the mothership's fame there's no contradiction (both twins have not quite so long beards). There's no contradiction in any of the three frames, therefore there is no contradiction! :)

 

Also if one accelerates into the other's frame then there is no contradiction, less time has passed for the accelerator and they both agree on how much time has passed for each.

[martillo]

Reality is only one. There cannot be two different realities. Frames are chosen to observe reality and different frames cannot give contradictory observations of the same reality.

[A-wal]

There is no contradiction!

 

There's one reality yes, but it includes multiple frames of reference that measure lengths in time and space differently. It's only a problem if it leads to an inconsistency and it doesn't. Difference inertial frames don't have to agree to be logically consistent with each other. It's only a problem if you try analysing multiple frames with your mind stuck in one frame. No frame actually contradicts any other, they're just out of synch with each other, that's all.

 

Being counter-intuitive (to some people) does not mean that there's any kind of logical inconsistency.

[martillo]

Difference inertial frames don't have to agree to be logically consistent with each other.

 

Sorry but I cannot agree with that.

A right physics theory must have consistent observations of the same reality in any frame of reference.

In other words frames of reference are taken to describe some real phenomenon. There cannot be contradictory descriptions of the same phenomenon in different frames of reference.

Edited October 28, 2016 by martillo

[A-wal]

Why?

 

A correct physical theory needs to be a logically consistent model of reality. That's exactly what special relativity is.

 

We know it's right because the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame. If objects that are in motion relative to each measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to themselves then they can't possibly be measuring time and space with the same values.

 

If look at the situation in your thought experiment, one of the twins shines a light towards the other twin, it reaches the mothership first and passes it at the speed of light (from the station's frame) before passing the other twin at the same speed (from the twins frame), but the light passes the mothership slower than the speed of light from the second twin's frame and then light passes the twin slower than the speed of light from the motherships frame. This would be a genuine contradiction if it weren't for time dilation and length contraction. Take those into account and now the light is taking less time to cover any given distance (time dilation) and traveling a shorter distance as well (length contraction).

 

Now everything is consistent because the combination of time dilation and length contraction make the speed of light move past the mothership slower than the speed of light from the twin's frame but from the station's frame it's the twin that's time dilated and length contracted from the mothership's frame so the mothership sees the light moving slower than the speed of light past the twin and the light has a constant speed in both frames. It's all very beautiful and it really does work perfectly, honest. :)

[martillo]

Lorentz Transforms already take into account length contraction and time dilation embedded in its equations. They can't be treated separatedly. In the section 1.1 I apply the Lorentz Transforms in the presented problem to  analyze the resulting observations of the same phenomenon in different frames and I get those contradictory results. So the theory is inconsistent in the presented problem.

 

I can't imagine other ways to explain the same thing in a yet another manner you can get to the point...

[A-wal]

So the theory is inconsistent in the presented problem.

No it isn't, just your understanding of it. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with the theory.

 

Lorentz Transforms already take into account length contraction and time dilation embedded in its equations. They can't be treated separatedly.

Yes they can. I explained what the Lorentz Transforms really are and WHY they're taken into account.

 

No amount of claiming that different lengths in time and space don't make sense to you can invalid a physically consistent model. Of course measurements in time and space differ in different frames of reference, that's exactly how reference frames are defined, it's what makes them different inertial frames! And it's what HAS to happen when the speed of light is constant relative to all inertial objects.

Edited October 28, 2016 by A-wal

[martillo]

No it isn't, just your understanding of it. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with the theory.

 

Yes they can. I explained what the Lorentz Transforms really are and WHY they're taken into account.

 

No amount of claiming that different lengths in time and space don't make sense to you can invalid a physically consistent model. Of course measurements in time and space differ in different frames of reference, that's exactly how reference frames are defined, it's what makes them different inertial frames! And it's what HAS to happen when the speed of light is constant relative to all inertial objects.

I'm not showing just different observations of measurements of time, space, etc. I'm showing CONTRADICTORY observations of the same phenomenon related by the Lorentz Transforms what is something very different.

Edited October 28, 2016 by martillo

[A-wal]

No you're not. Different measurements between different inertial frames is not contradictory observations. Yes one has aged less in one frame and the other has aged less in the other frame, so what? Where's the contradiction?

 

One has a beard and the other has a beard in the other frame so the model is wrong? Not good enough! You haven't pointed out any kind of logical inconsistency, because there aren't any.

[martillo]

No you're not. Different measurements between different inertial frames is not contradictory observations. Yes one has aged less in one frame and the other has aged less in the other frame, so what? Where's the contradiction?

 

One has a beard and the other has a beard in the other frame so the model is wrong? Not good enough! You haven't pointed out any kind of logical inconsistency, because there aren't any.

Well if you don't find contradiction and inconsistency in those things i don't know what contradiction and  inconsistency means to you.

Edited October 28, 2016 by martillo

[A-wal]

Something that doesn't make sense and/or isn't consistent with itself and/or observations.

 

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about different frames of reference having different measurements for length in time and space, that's precisely what defines them as different inertial frames. For there to a be a logical inconsistency there would have to be a difference in length of time or space of the same object as measured by observers that are in the same frame of reference.

[martillo]

Something that doesn't make sense and/or isn't consistent with itself and/or observations.

 

There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about different frames of reference having different measurements for length in time and space, that's precisely what defines them as different inertial frames. For there to a be a logical inconsistency there would have to be a difference in length of time or space of the same object as measured by observers that are in the same frame of reference.

Seems we have reached an end on the discussion. I can't stay repeating tha same thing again and again.