Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

The paradox never fully considered the effect of acceleration upon the loss of this symmetry which of course involves relativity of simultaneity. I

 It was a poor examination as SR assumed constant velocity under the original examination and under the premises set by the paradox

 

it's been fully considered since the early 1900's.  Where have you been?

[Moronium]

The citizens of the 19th century thought 60mph trains and heavier-than-air craft were "logically impossible" until experiment showed that their assumptions were wrong.

 

And that is what you are doing here.

 

You've decided how you think SR works, and then declared it logically impossible.

 

Frankly, I agree. As does the science community. Your idea of SR is logically impossible.

Because your understanding of it is messed up.

 

And no amount of arguing it will convince you - until you go back and pick up a book and read it.

 

Heh.  Every prominent physicist I've ever seen readily acknowledges that it is logically impossible for each of two clocks to be slower than the other.  Or horses.  Or cars.  Or anything.  It you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of logic, you would acknowledge it too.

[Shustaire]

Have you ever heard of the hyperbolic rotation of constant acceleration it is not part of the original twin paradox the addition of this rotation is part of the solution. Why not study it.

 

[math] \frac{c^4}{g^2} [/math] is the hyperbola for uniform acceleration ie the turnaround. Many GR textbooks at the Introductory will teach this as part of the twin paradox under the solutions portion. If you like I can latex an excerpt on how it derives from one of my textbooks for you.

Do you even understand the requirements of relativity of simultaneity and principle of covariance with regards to time reversal symmetry in terms of the Lorentz group? In particular to the ct diagrams and its lightcones ? Are you familiar with the Kruskal diagram

This diagram applies the hyperbola relation above..

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=QFII1Urj&id=F9D8A2EB76FDC2ACE8C33E69665947EEF404FECF&thid=OIP.QFII1UrjqPtTlzZskgHVzwHaHe&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fpeTIq.jpg&exph=300&expw=297&q=kruskal+diagram&simid=608050715918141176&selectedIndex=0

 

 

it's been fully considered since the early 1900's.  Where have you been

 

Try actually studying the premises set by a paradox or a theory your arguing against. You might even try looking at the solutions its easily googled nowadays.

However lets provide you one.

 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.4154.pdf

 

You will find everything I stated about acceleration under SR is correct... according to mainstream.

 

So lets flip that question Where have you been if you were not aware of the solutions ? presented in that article ?

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[OceanBreeze]

The twin paradox is essentially examining the reversibility of the Lorentz transformations under change in vector sign of the ct dimension. The ct under natural units gives time units of length. The paradox never fully considered the effect of acceleration upon the loss of this symmetry which of course involves relativity of simultaneity. In this there is two types of acceleration linear ie speeding up and slowing down on leaving and arrival times. Nor the rotation upon turnaround.

 

 It was a poor examination as SR assumed constant velocity under the original examination and under the premises set by the paradox

 

Yes, that has been mentioned several times, by myself as well as several others. Maybe we didn't use the same words as you, but the main point is the same; acceleration breaks the symmetry.

 

 

I know this has been said before, but I will vainly repeat it anyway:

 

Special Relativity says the laws of physics are the same without regard to which of the coordinate systems are moving uniformly (without acceleration) relative to each other, they are referenced to.

 

This means if clock A moving relative to clock B, in uniform motion, undergoes time dilation with respect to clock B, then clock B undergoes time dilation with respect to clock A. Simply put, time dilation is reciprocal under special relativity.

 

The two cases you mentioned, the twin paradox and the GPS system are not instances of uniform motion as both of them involve acceleration. The twin travelling away from Earth and then returning undergoes acceleration at least two times; when he leaves and when he turns around to come back. That is the explanation given for the asymmetrical time dilation.

 

In the GPS system, the satellites are not travelling in a straight line but are in circular orbits around the Earth. Moving in a circle means they are in a constant state of acceleration with respect to the Earth-centered reference. This results in asymmetrical time dilation of the satellite clocks, under both SR and GR.

 

Therefore, neither of these cases can be used as an argument for a violation of reciprocal time dilation.

 

I do have to concede one point though; no experiment has ever been performed to explicitly test the  reciprocal case. For example, in a particle accelerator a clock cannot be attached to the high speed particle to verify that the lab's clock runs slow relative to the high speed particle as predicted by SR, we can only see that particle's clock runs slow compared with the lab's clock.

[OceanBreeze]

Have you ever heard of the hyperbolic rotation of constant acceleration it is not part of the original twin paradox the addition of this rotation is part of the solution. Why not study it.

 

[math] \frac{c^4}{g^2} [/math] is the hyperbola for uniform acceleration ie the turnaround. Many GR textbooks at the Introductory will teach this as part of the twin paradox under the solutions portion. If you like I can latex an excerpt on how it derives from one of my textbooks for you.

Do you even understand the requirements of relativity of simultaneity and principle of covariance with regards to time reversal symmetry in terms of the Lorentz group? In particular to the ct diagrams and its lightcones ? Are you familiar with the Kruskal diagram

This diagram applies the hyperbola relation above..

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=QFII1Urj&id=F9D8A2EB76FDC2ACE8C33E69665947EEF404FECF&thid=OIP.QFII1UrjqPtTlzZskgHVzwHaHe&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fi.stack.imgur.com%2fpeTIq.jpg&exph=300&expw=297&q=kruskal+diagram&simid=608050715918141176&selectedIndex=0

 

 

 

Try actually studying the premises set by a paradox or a theory your arguing against. You might even try looking at the solutions its easily googled nowadays.

However lets provide you one.

 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.4154.pdf

 

 

But the twin paradox can also be explained in terms of accelerating away and back to a gravitational field such as the Earth has and that explanation uses GR not SR.

 

I think the question that Moronium is asking, and I am not trying to put words in his mouth, is this: Since all the experimental evidence we have for time dilation TD, whether velocity TD or gravitational (cosmological) TD has all been acquired with regards to gravitational fields and all of it is asymmetrical TD, does reciprocal TD ever happen?

 

As I pointed out earlier, there is no experimental evidence for reciprocal TD, certainly none that I know of; maybe you know of such evidence?

 

Without such evidence, isn't it reasonable to question whether or not reciprocal TD even exists?

 

I freely admit it seems logical to think it does, but it is also possible that it does not and I find it interesting at least to consider that possibility.

[OceanBreeze]

Thanks, OB. That does actually provide some clarity, assuming you are correct in your assessment of his argument.

 

I could be wrong, but that is the way I understand his argument.

 

I do not agree with his conclusions but I agree that he does have an argument to make.

[Shustaire]

In a sense the one way two way speed of light tests. Those are tests of the isotopy of the ct component. Obviously you can't compare clocks if one clock never returns ie under constant velocity away from the other clock. However signal pulses can be sent back and forth as a measuring tool.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[OceanBreeze]

In a sense the one way two way speed of light tests. Those are tests of the isotopy of the ct component.

 

But those tests are also done within or respect to a gravitational field, right?

 

Just suppose for a second that two spacecraft are far out in space, away from any gravitational field (except their own) and they move away from each other at a constant relativistic velocity, so they are both inertial frames.

 

Either one of these two things must happen:

 

1) They each see the other's time as dilated in accordance with SR theory of reciprocal time dilation.

 

2) Velocity time dilation does not happen at all and we have been fooled by gravitational effects.

 

I don't see an option for asymmetrical time dilation in this situation since they both have exactly the same properties; anything that happens must be symmetrical.

 

So, I am considering option #2 as a possibility.

[Moronium]

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.4154.pdf

 

 

This article tries to explain SR in terms of GR.  Einstein never had an answer to the twin paradox, and acknowledged that the attempts to find one were insufficient in his opinion.  He did finally try to use something similar to explain it in 1919 or so, but his explanation has never been widely accepted.

 

The whole "SR does not apply" argument has never been accepted, although it has been presented a million times. This author says:

 

One may get rid of the twin paradox at once by noting that in order to be able to meet, depart and meet again, at least one of the twins must accelerate. And within the special theory of relativity the principle of relativity is not valid for accelerated motion.

 

 

Time dilation IS valid for accelerated motion in SR.

 

Does a clock's acceleration affect its timing rate?

 

It's often said that special relativity is based on two postulates: that all inertial frames are of equal validity, and that light travels at the same speed in all inertial frames.  But in real world scenarios, objects almost never travel at constant velocity, and so we might never find an inertial frame in which such an object is at rest.  To allow us to make predictions about how accelerating objects behave, we need to introduce a third postulate.

 

...The clock postulate generalises this to say that even when the moving clock accelerates, the ratio of the rate of our clocks compared to its rate is still the above quantity.  That is, this ratio depends only on v, and does not depend on any derivatives of v, such as acceleration.  So this says that an accelerating clock will count out its time in such a way that at any one moment, its timing has slowed by a factor (γ ) that depends only on its current speed; its acceleration has no effect at all.

 

So the clock postulate says that the rate of an accelerated clock doesn't depend on its acceleration.  But note: the clock postulate does not say that the rate of timing of a moving clock is unaffected by its acceleration.  The timing rate will certainly be affected if the acceleration changes the clock's speed of movement, because its speed determines how fast it counts out its time (i.e. by the factor γ).

 

Although the clock postulate is just that, a postulate, it has been verified experimentally up to extraordinarily high accelerations, as much as 10 (18th power) g in fact.

 

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html

 

By the way, the clock hypothesis is not some "new wrinkle."  It was established by Einstein himself in his first paper on SR (in 1905). That's also when the "twin paradox" (then known as the "clock paradox") first appeared.

 

This is one answer to the objection you repeat, Popeye.  I will also briefly repeat my reply:  Of course the twins' situation is not symmetrical, one is moving, one isn't.  Big difference.  Saying they're not symmetrical doesn't solve the problem, it just proves the inconsistency in SR.  In this case SR gives you an absolute answer, not a "relative" one.  Only one twin's clock slows down.  And that is because they're not symmetrical (not relative).

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I don't see an option for asymmetrical time dilation in this situation since they both have exactly the same properties; anything that happens must be symmetrical.

 

 

This conclusion simply doesn't follow, Popeye.

 

1. Are they moving?  Yes

2. Does that mean they are travelling at *some* speed (even if it's zero for one of them)?  Yes

3.  Even if we don't know what that speed is?  Yes

4.  Does that mean time dilation must be reciprocal?  No

 

Let's say they are travelling at .5c relative to each other.  Could one be going .4c in one direction and the other going .1c in the opposite direction?  Yes, that could be.  We just don't have any way to know.

 

How about one going .3c and the other .2c?  Yeah, possible.  In fact there are an infinite number of possibilities, including even the happenstance that they're each going .25c in opposite directions.

 

The crucial thing to realize here is that objective speed is NOT determined by subjective assumptions or subjective knowledge.  Such things cannot possibly affect the speed of an object.

 

Before the invention of the telescope in Galileo's day, no one knew, or had any way of knowing, that Jupiter had moons.  But those moons were not just created, ex nihilo, the second someone looked through at telescope at them. What "is," simply doesn't depend on what we can know.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's the same point, made a different way:

 

It is common to say that the sun "rises in the east, and sets in the west."  This presupposes a geocentric view of the solar system.

 

But how would it look to us if the planet were rotating (and the sun was not moving)?

 

Answer:  Exactly the same.

 

Well, then, since they would "look" the same, they are the same, right?

 

Uhhh, no.

 

But, since they look the same, we could never know which is the case (geocentrism or heliocentrism), right?

 

Uhh, no.

 

We have rational ways of "knowing" (deducing) which is which.  We are not SOLELY dependent upon raw sense perception as a means of knowing, and especially not on just ONE single perception while ignoring all others.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

.

The crucial thing to realize here is that objective speed is NOT determined by subjective assumptions or subjective knowledge.  Such things cannot possibly affect the speed of an object.

 

Before the invention of the telescope in Galileo's day, no one knew, or had any way of knowing, that Jupiter had moons.  But those moons were not just created, ex nihilo, the second someone looked through at telescope at them. What "is," simply doesn't depend on what we can know.

 

Popeye, from what you've said in the past, I suspect you disagree with this.  If you do disagree, I wouldn't expect you to even take the time to say so.  So I will just ask you directly:  Do you disagree?

[DaveC426913]

Here's the same point, made a different way:

 

It is common to say that the sun "rises in the east, and sets in the west."  This presupposes a geocentric view of the solar system.

 

 

Please. Stop using everyday analogies.

 

It goes without saying that relativistic physics is not the same as the fixed time / fixed space of Newtonian physics.

 

You already acknowledge that time dilation is a fact of the world. (You just don't like the flavour.)  So your old idea of "logically impossible" does not apply. Non-intuitive dilation is a fact of an Einsteinian universe. Accept it.

 

 

Heh.  Every prominent physicist I've ever seen readily acknowledges that it is logically impossible for each of two clocks to be slower than the other.  Or horses.  Or cars.  Or anything.  It you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of logic, you would acknowledge it too.

 

This statement may well be true, inasmuch as you not having seen any prominent physicists.

 

But no prominent physicists - seen by you or otherwise - have a problem without the apparent paradox.

 

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

Edited July 7, 2018 by DaveC426913

[Moronium]

Non-intuitive dilation is a fact of an Einsteinian universe. Accept it.

 

Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

 

 

A FACT, eh!?

 

What doesn't make sense simply doesn't make sense, whether it's me or anyone else.

 

Here's a little puzzle for you:

 

Let's say we have two clocks which run at different rates, for whatever reason.  Not necessarily anything to do with relative motion, maybe one just has a battery that's run down.  The main thing is that they run at different rates.

 

Now we set both of them to 12:00 and start them ticking.

 

One hour later one of the clocks (A) reads 1:00

 

Now give me a time which the other clock could read which would indicate that it is runs both faster and slower than this one.  Take your time.  Hint: It's not 12:59.  It's not 1:01.  What is it?  Any number you want, just give me the number and we'll fill it in as the time for clock B.

 

Remember A has to run slower than B AND B has to run slower than A.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's Richard Feynman basically repudiating SR as he explains the twin paradox result:

 

...consider a famous so-called “paradox” of Peter and Paul, who are supposed to be twins, born at the same time....When they are old enough to drive a space ship, Paul flies away at very high speed. Because Peter, who is left on the ground, sees Paul going so fast, all of Paul’s clocks appear to go slower, his heart beats go slower, his thoughts go slower, everything goes slower, from Peter’s point of view. Of course, Paul notices nothing unusual, but if he travels around and about for a while and then comes back, he will be younger than Peter, the man on the ground! That is actually right; it is one of the consequences of the theory of relativity which has been clearly demonstrated. Just as the muons last longer when they are moving, so also will Paul last longer when he is moving.  This is called a “paradox” only by the people who believe that the principle of relativity means that all motion is relative...

 

 

Let's stop right here for a minute, then get back to Feynman.  There is no paradox, he says, unless you believe that all motion is relative.  If you do believe that, THEN there's a paradox. Back to Feynman:

 

...they say, “Heh, heh, heh, from the point of view of Paul, can’t we say that Peter was moving and should therefore appear to age more slowly?  By symmetry, the only possible result is that both should be the same age when they meet.”  But in order for them to come back together and make the comparison, Paul must either stop at the end of the trip and make a comparison of clocks or, more simply, he has to come back, and the one who comes back must be the man who was moving, and he knows this, because he had to turn around. When he turned around, all kinds of unusual things happened in his space ship—the rockets went off, things jammed up against one wall, and so on—while Peter felt nothing.  

 

So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference between them in an “absolute” sense, and it is certainly correct.

 

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

 

1.  We know that acceleration is absolute in SR.

2.  We also know, from the (3rd) clock postulate, that this acceleration, in itself, does not affect time dilation in the least.

3.  However, acceleration does increase speed, and it is speed, and speed alone, which causes time dilation.

4.  He only can "feel" accelerations if he is moving.

5.  The earth twin CANNOT legitimately consider himself to be the one moving.

 

Therefore, according to Feynman, one ages less because he is moving and that means motion in the absolute (not relative) sense.

 

Which makes perfect sense, of course.

 

A few problems for SR, though.  Feynman just told me that the travelling twin's movement is absolute, so it can't be relative.  He just told me that time dilation is not reciprocal.  He just told me that simultaneity is absolute.  He just told me how to determine which one is moving (look at the two clocks and see which runs slower).

 

All of that contradicts the mathematical implications of SR's postulates.

 

Note also that Feynman says that symmetry would NOT entail reciprocal time dilation.  It would entail the conclusion that neither clock would run slower than the other, that's all.  Motion is not "symmetrical," i.e., it is not relative.  It is absolute, so one clock is slower, and one clock is faster, rather than the two being the same at the end of the trip.

 

What will the travelling twin "see?"  Who cares? It's not about what he sees, it's about who is actually moving. But we know this much, if he "sees" himself as motionless  when travelling inertially (as SR requires him to), then he is just plain wrong, that's all.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

But those tests are also done within or respect to a gravitational field, right?

 

Just suppose for a second that two spacecraft are far out in space, away from any gravitational field (except their own) and they move away from each other at a constant relativistic velocity, so they are both inertial frames.

 

Either one of these two things must happen:

 

1) They each see the other's time as dilated in accordance with SR theory of reciprocal time dilation.

 

2) Velocity time dilation does not happen at all and we have been fooled by gravitational effects.

 

I don't see an option for asymmetrical time dilation in this situation since they both have exactly the same properties; anything that happens must be symmetrical.

 

So, I am considering option #2 as a possibility.

 

How many satelites do we communicate with sending signals back and forth to each other and to us ? All of which lie at differing potentials? We have never had an event where there is greater delay in the directions of those signals.

 

 I would say this is valid tests on the directional aspects of signal delay. Particularly when you apply time dilation to gravitational redshift. Those signal exchanges are using EM signals. So I would validate this as applying c as the rate of information exchange.

 

This includes to the Voyager probes which as been communicating with us at numerous points within and to the edge of our solar system. Many of those satellites and probes have onboard clocks ie RTC's which they use to time certain processes for procedures the craft is to undergo. I'm not positive but I would certainly think the GPS satellites have RTC's just to perform the calculations for relativistic adjustments.

 

Sounds to me like a continuous series of everyday tests on everyday experiences as opposed to dedicated funded tests.

 

As per Moroniums last post on the POSTULATES of SR this is precisely why the last paper I linked switches to the Postulates of GR in regards to the twin paradox upon applying the four velocity four momentum of which the equations use the proper time. SR can equate acceleration through the histories of its instantaneous velocities and equate the time dilation factors at each instantaneous velocity. It even has more advanced equations for uniform acceleration under SR.

 

However the key postulate is constant velocity hence Special... this is also referenced to through the same link to the same paper in the intro.

 

I've already described the differences between proper time in one of my previous posts on this thread between the two treatments SR and GR.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Shustaire

[DaveC426913]

A FACT, eh!?

Yes. Read what I wrote.

 

Time dilation is a fact of an Einsteinian universe. That's how he wrote it.

 

What doesn't make sense simply doesn't make sense, whether it's me or anyone else.

It makes sense to everyone else who is sufficiently familiar with it.

 

Let's say we have two clocks which run at different rates, for whatever reason.  Not necessarily anything to do with relative motion, maybe one just has a battery that's run down.  The main thing is that they run at different rates.

You're doing it again. Your'e creating a mundane scenario, and using everyday logic to examine it.

I'm gonna guess that travelling at relativistic velocities is not a everyday thing for you.

 

As long as you try to rationalize relativistic physics using Newtonian absolutes of time and space you will encounter paradoxes.

 

That's why Newtonian physics is insufficient to explain our observations at extreme velocities.

 

And that's why it's been replaced by Einsteinian physics. Because SR accurately models our observations.

 

...whether or not it appeals to anyone's "common sense". It's not common, for Pete's sake!

Edited July 7, 2018 by DaveC426913