In Einstein’s 1095 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' he presents two clocks: Clock A is moving in a linear fashion relative to clock B, and hence Clock A would experience a dilation in time, ticking slower through each second, despite before beginning its horizontal translation it being synchronized with same.
Hence if time can bend for a moving observer (due to the perspective of a fixed observer watching them) Einstein's first postulate of relativity (that all frames of reference are equally valid) tells us that it can also bend for the fixed observer (from the perspective of the moving observer.) This is mutual time-dilation. It is a perceived relative phenomenon (depending on the perspective of the observer in question), however the principles from which it arises are psychological in nature; not physical, yet they are regarded as an accurate representation of the mechanics of the physical world by the bulk of the scientific community.
Perspective does not equate to reality. Time moves mountains and turns grasslands into forests; how can it be touched? Let alone bent.
So the question as it has remained for over a century still stands:
Which clock is moving faster? As it is a physical impossibility that both clocks are moving faster and slower than each other. Mutually-exclusive simultaneous events can only occur in the mind.
Hello Vitor Matheus Izoldi Nogueira ,
Your question reminds me of another RG question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory
Regards,
Thomas Cuff
Dear Vitor Matheus Izoldi Nogueira,
The restricted theory of relativity established new formulas allowing to pass from a Galilean frame of reference to another. The corresponding equations lead to predictions of phenomena that run counter to common sense (but none of these predictions has been invalidated by experience), one of the most surprising being the slowing down of moving clocks, which made it possible to design the thought experiment often referred to as the twin paradox. This phenomenon is regularly used in science fiction.
The term time dilation designates an effect of special relativity according to which the time interval between two events measured in any inertial reference frame is always greater than the time interval measured in the inertial reference frame (in motion relative to the first) where these two events have the same spatial position (but do not take place at the same time). Given that time is defined, in the theory of relativity, by the initial datum of a clock for each frame of reference, we can deduce that for an observer a moving clock seems slowed down compared to a stationary clock. This effect intervenes on any time measurer.
A Minkowski diagram, in two dimensions, allows a representation of this phenomenon in Minkowski space and can help with a qualitative and intuitive understanding.
For more information about this subject i suggest you to see links on topic.
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html
https://www.space.com/36273-theory-special-relativity.html
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/time/a-matter-of-time
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/
https://www.insidescience.org/news/time-moves-faster-upstairs
Best regards
“…In Einstein’s 1095 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' he presents two clocks: Clock A is moving in a linear fashion relative to clock B, and hence Clock A would experience a dilation in time, ticking slower through each second, despite before beginning its horizontal translation it being synchronized with same. ….Which clock is moving faster? As it is a physical impossibility that both clocks are moving faster and slower than each other. Mutually-exclusive simultaneous events can only occur in the mind.….”
- this problem is known in physics a long time, though seems that was Dingle, who firstly formulated it as real principal problem in the SR, and published that in Nature in 1967:
- that from the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime, and so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely equivalent and legitimate, the evidently absurd consequence “clocks in two moving relatively frames absolutely really and legitimately tick simultaneously faster and slower each other” completely rigorously follows.
But that was the unique publication in official physics journals; further publications with this fact were prohibited in everywhere, despite of that is evidently scientifically true formulated fundamental problem in the physical theory. In parallel Dingle was defamed in scientific and pop scientific media, and example https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath024/kmath024.htm , which is nothing else then some dirty meaningless libel that contains a senseless set of senseless arbitrary formulae, which have no any relation to the problem; and, additionally, of “blatant mathematical tricks”, that contain a set of simply “blatant lies”.
That was/is unique way “to disprove Dingle” in rather numerous corresponding publications in official physics, which also is widely used in discussions, including on RG. However in the discussions some members appears, who show clearly what are these two points – that Dingle objection is completely true, and that the “Dingle disprovings” are nothing else than some senseless claims,
- and in this case in discussions some very vivid members appear also, as a rule that are a few “the SR refuters”, who actively write some full-stop unphysical “refutations”, and “professional physicists”, who explain to readers how wrong the “refutations” are, which flood discussion by intensive spam; an example is in
“…Your question reminds me of another RG question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory…..”
But that
“…Perspective does not equate to reality. Time moves mountains and turns grasslands into forests; how can it be touched? Let alone bent. …”
- is incorrect. If there are, say, again two relatively moving frames, than in one frame fundamentally obligatorily clocks tick slower, the observer ages lesser, etc., than in other frame. At that only in the absolute frames, which are at rest in the 3D space of the absolute Matter’s spacetime [that Matter’s spacetime is absolute i completely rigorously follows by the completely rigorous “proof by contradiction” from the Dingle objection; from these SR postulates any number of other senseless consequences completely rigorously follow, though],
- where, including, [at rest] clocks tick rates are maximal, bodies have maximal lengths, etc., and all material objects, including that move, have the real parameters – real tick rates, lengths, velocities, energies, etc.,
- whereas in any moving frame all these parameters are unreal.
More see first 6 pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible, in the whole paper two methods for observation of the absolute motion and measurement of the absolute velocity – in this case of a pair of clocks – are described.
Cheers
>>In Einstein’s 1095 paper 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' he presents two clocks: … //
The revelations of the fraudsters should not be read in order to look for defects in them, but only if you are keen to join the community of «gentlemen of fortune», extracting means of subsistence by lecturing about someone’s genius. … Why invent new income-generating activities when it is easier to master the profession of priest or shaman?
>> Clock A is moving in a linear fashion relative to clock B, and hence Clock A would experience a dilation in time, ticking slower … //
With regard to «clocks», it was necessary first to read the instructions for their application. This instruction states that the ticking of moving clocks is loosely related to time intervals, but moving «clocks» will in most cases tick slower.
Regards
Hello Vitor Matheus Izoldi Nogueira ,
I was unaware of Herbert Dingle (1890-1978) and his objection to the Special Theory of Relativity (STR).
[1] G. J. Whitrow; Herbert Dingle; Nature (London); Vol. 277; 15 February 1979; pp. 584-585.
The reason I was unaware of Dingle and his specific objection to the STR is because his name is not to be found in most textbooks that deal with relativity either briefly or comprehensively.
[2] Paul A. Tipler; Foundations of Modern Physics; Worth Publishers, Inc.; 1969.
[3] Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler; Gravitation; W. H. Freeman and Company, Inc.; 1973.
And, I believe, his clock objection has been recast as the "Twin Paradox". That term, "Twin Paradox", basically eliminates any mention of Dingle, and the part he played in the decades long (late 1930s until the early 1970s) discussion in the pages of Nature (London), and by referring to it as a paradox (a true statement that appears false) as opposed to a sophism (a false statement that appears true) rebuffs Dingle's objection and sides with Dingle's opponents.
When I recently discovered RG question on Dingle's Paradox, I was stumped as to how to find any citations to Dingle's work on the STR since even the two most popular answers seemed devoid of any citations save vaguely mentioning Nature. And, of course, I was not about to click the "Show previous answers" link 260+ times in order to see if someone else had provided citiations. It turned out, by chance, that I had in my library a Methuen's Monograph on Physical Subjects by Dingle, in which he mentioned his clock objection.
[4] Herbert Dingle; The Special Theory of Relativity, 3rd Ed.; Methuen & Co. Ltd. (London), John Wiley & Sons Inc. (New York); 1950; pp. 39-40.
A perusal of the online Nature archives revealed that, as in the case of your question, there were both opponents and suporters of Dingle's clock objection. The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh. Here are some citiations to Dingle's supporters.
[5] L. Essen; The Error in the Special Theory of Relativity; Nature; Vol. 217; 6 January 1968; p. 19.
[6] H. L. Armstrong; In Defence of Dingle; Nature; Vol. 242; 16 March 1973; p. 214.
I suppose it is not surprising that an unrepentant questioner (heretic to some), such as Dingle, should be expurgated from the body politic, but, as far as I can tell, his was an honest question, which he defended eloquently. In many ways, Dingle was a latter day version of Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753), who, to his credit, pointed out the logical inconsistencies in Newton's method of fluxions to the eventual benefit of all who would later visit this subject, even briefly, as it forced later mathematicians to firm up and clarify their proofs of this important and useful subject.
[7] Carl B. Boyer; A History of Mathematics; Princeton University Press; 1968; pp 469-470.
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, like Bishop Berkeley before them, were aware of logical inconsistencies in the foundations of mathematics, and they unsuccessfully tried to remedy them in their volumes of "Principia Mathematica".
According to the following reference book, the first mention of the twin paradox occurred in 1911.
[8] E. U. Condon, Hugh Odishaw (editors); Handbook of Physics, Second Edition; McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1967; p. 2-43 (text) & 2-53 (citations).
The 1911 citation was to a paper by Langevin, although it is not clear that he used the term "Twin Paradox". It was also mentioned that this term "... had received much attention in the literature [cites two other papers in 1962]...".
[9] Paul Langevin; L'Évolution de l'space et du temps; Scientia; Vol. 10; 1911; pp. 31-54.
[10] Sebastian von Hoerner; The general limits to space travel; Science; Vol. 137; No. 3523; 6 July 1962; pp. 18-23.
[11] L. O. Pilgeram; Time dilations; Science; Vol. 138; No. 3545; 7 December 1962; p. 1180.
The paper by von Hoerner could be thought of as relativistic engineering since it simply applies the time dilation from STR to the problem of human space travel. The objection by Pilgeram points out that physical time and biological time (chemical and biochemical reactions) may not be interchangeable without experimental verification, a view rejected by von Hoerner in his rebuttal letter, which follows Pilgeram's objection letter on p. 1180. To those people who would agree with von Hoerner's rebuttal, I would ask do they think that the gedanken experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat would have the same philosophical weight if the cat were replaced with a stuffed animal? Anyway, the guiding principle in science should always be: trust but verify.
It is not clear that any of these three discussions actually employs the term "Twin Paradox". When I first read the RG question about Dingle's Paradox, I was unaware that Paul Langevin had first proposed the idea, which, today, is referred to as the "Twin Paradox". I only thought to rename it to "Dingle's Sophism" after I learned the word 'sophism' from the title of the book of clever physics problems by Lange.
[12] V. N. Lange, Valerii Ilyushchenko (translator); Physical Paradoxes and Sophisms; Mir Publishers Moscow; 1987.
One could, of course, equally ask why it is not referred to as "Langevin's Paradox", just the way we refer to Ohm's Law, Joule Heating, Maxwell's Demon, Schrödinger's Cat, etc. To those people who would say that 'twin paradox' is more self-explanatory or evocative, I would point to the following counterexample. We used to have perfectly good units for frequency, cps (Cycles per Second), that was self-explanatory or evocative, only to have it replaced by the units of Hz (Hertz).
As to why Dingle's name has been expurgated from physics textbooks and reference books, including the reference book by Condon & Odishaw, it seems that physicists like to burn their heretics in private as opposed to public burnings, although both processes have about the same carbon neutrality or lack thereof. I suppose a public burning is more liable to attract a mob of the hoi polloi shouting unwanted criticisms such as "Why are you burning him?" as opposed to the expected acclamations such as "Burn the bastard!".
Regards,
Tom Cuff
Dear Mohamed-Mourad Lafifi , you wrote >>A Minkowski diagram, in two dimensions, allows a representation of this phenomenon in Minkowski space and can help with a qualitative and intuitive understanding.//
Oh yes, but help with qualitative and intuitive understanding is only possible if the brain of the pupil is inherently incapable of performing cognitive functions.
My experience shows that most of Comrade Minkowski’s fans are not in a position to take part in the construction of the hyperbola that underlies the Minkowski diagram doctrine, even as project leaders for such construction. Curiously, can you explain such a peculiarity of Minkowski diagrams that if I suggest opponents (not at RG!!!) to jointly build a Minkowski hyperbola, in response I hear only market curses? Could it be that Minkowski (like his famous pupil) was so stupid that he did not think to foresee the case of converging/ approaching objects?
With kind regards
Vitor Matheus Izoldi Nogueira , >> … Clock A is moving in a linear fashion relative to clock B, and hence Clock A would experience a dilation in time, ticking slower …//
In the attached sketch, there are 8 clocks in the same inertial system (IS) which, when launched simultaneously by a flash inside a semi-transparent prism with mirror faces, will tick in a ratio of 1:2:3. But do such ticks have a relation to time (from Adam :)? And what happens if a similar clock ticks in different moving IS's?
Regards
Sergey Sheludko Thank you for the diagram, this is an intriguing example, and demonstrates beautifully the flaw in juxtaposing SR to reality. In theory clocks F and F' should move significantly slower than the innermost clocks, but were this to be done in the real world, all clocks, were the angular momentum to cease, would still read the same time (they would not be off-sync). One can argue that as you said, do physical ticks of a clock have relation to theoretical physical time? Or do neither the ticks, nor the clocks themselves, regardless of movement, have any affect on the inescapable, merciless arrow of time?
After yesterday SS post with reference to the yesterday post in this thread yesterday was posted in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory
- the discussion in this thread, where 1 day age posts were on the visible page, at the posting, was drastically accelerated by mostly two posters, in classical in such cases combination – one “the SR refuter” and one “the SR defender”, both of which have rather vague imagination about what the SR is, which, posting vividly addressing each to other, some full stop wordings, shifted the SS post form visible page in 3 hours.
Again, the “Dingle objection to the SR” is so evident, and evidently true, that the massive spamming is practically unique rational method “to disprove Dingle” in any discussion.
And in this thread a couple “refuter” and “defender” appeared, though not too active, but with also – at “defenses and at “refutations” – senseless posts; which, however, it seems should be, nonetheless, commented.
“…In the attached sketch, there are 8 clocks in the same inertial system (IS) which, when launched simultaneously by a flash inside a semi-transparent prism with mirror faces, will tick in a ratio of 1:2:3. But do such ticks have a relation to time (from Adam :)? And what happens if a similar clock ticks in different moving IS's?…..”
- any number of normally working clocks, which are at rest in some inertial reference frame tick equally in sense that show equal time intervals, if that are one type clocks, they all will tick identically.
However synchronization of clocks in reference frame includes two things: clocks must tick with equal/ known rates, and – the distant clocks must show equal time moments for simultaneous in given frame distant events. The last point is made mostly by two methods: synchronization by short light flashes, when a clock that is on distance L from “zero clock” is set in the showing t=L/c when the flaash hits in it, and “slow transport synchronization”, when clocks are set in zero in one point, and further are slowly transported on their working places in distant points in the frame with known speed.
In an absolute, i.e. that is at rest in 3D space of Matter’s fundamentally absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, frame all clocks have so always identical time showings, and simultaneous according the showings distant events really are simultaneous.
In any other, i.e. moving with some absolute speed V,frame, according with the frames clocks’ showings these events will not be simultaneous, and how many different frame with different speeds could exist, so many different “relativities of simultaneity” will exist.
However in this fact there is nothing non-physical, that was known yet in 1800s, when it was discovered that the measured one way speed of light between two points that are distant on East-West direction, is the same =c, independently on – measurement is made at day or at night, whereas in these cases the speed should be (c+VE) and (c-VE), VE is orbital Earth speed, which is rather large, and that would be observed.
And this “relativity of simultaneity” was quantitatively evaluated by Voigt yet in 1887 as the Voigt-Lorentz decrement –VL/c2, which remains in the 1904 year Lorentz transformations.
Again – that is quite adequate to the reality in most cases, since that is actualization of the extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, and so the real inertial reference frames are really practically completely equivalent and legitimate, including the SR is well applicable in everyday practice,
- whereas the rigorous Dingle objection turns out to be inessential. However that the SR is, nonetheless, fundamentally non-adequate to the reality, and when physics addresses to really fundamental problems, this non-adequacy becomes to be fundamental impediment.
As to
“…I was unaware of Herbert Dingle (1890-1978) and his objection to the Special Theory of Relativity (STR).
[1] G. J. Whitrow; Herbert Dingle; Nature (London); Vol. 277; 15 February 1979; pp. 584-585.…..”
- etc., that is typical official physics “disproving of Dingle”, i.e. a long text that has no relation to the Dingle problem, but contains a rather long list of some “disprovers Dingle”, who also fundamentally could not to write something rational, since the Dingle objection is fundamentally true, and so wrote also long papers, books, etc., which have no relation to physics.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko Thank you for the amazing insights. I had the same intuition when reading that thread (now close to 5000 answers in length) that those two men going back and forth the whole time are there as white noise to obscure any meaningful discussion. Clear case of "controlled opposition"; discouraging newcomers, discrediting the community they pose to be a part of, and misleading those who research these esoteric truths.
Thanks to the Absolute, though, some of us are imbued with spiritual immune systems which enable us to stand up and walk outside the dimly fire-lit cave of physical & cosmological scientific inquiry into the full mid-day sun. Light changes speed entering Iceland spar, or even going through a glass of water.. what an insult to say it is constant on earth. The only place light is still is in the throne of the Creator.
Cheers to absolute truth & time, may you have a blessed one. Aloha brother
Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
>> - any number of normally working clocks, which are at rest in some inertial reference frame tick equally in sense that show equal time intervals, if that are one type clocks, they all will tick identically.//
Yes, correct, but tick exactly (different clocks with different but constant rate) if the clocks are at rest relative to the inertial system (IS). Without any connection with the letterset «reference».
Because each space volume can relate to no more than 1 (one) IS, even in a bad inertial system like the Galilean ship’s hold, I can do some physical experiments. But you, being tied to the reference point of the ship outside, will cease to be interested in the set of words «inertial reference frame» at the moment when the sharks start eating you. The saddest part of this story is that I, being inside, will have no pleasure in seeing such a spectacular event.
>> However synchronization of clocks in reference frame includes …//
As we can see, short light flash inside the prism is present; I have two such flashes in different clocks of the same inertial system in the attached sketch and we can easily synchronize them. Such clocks will run at the same rates, even in different inertial systems without being completely synchronized. Why would they be absolutely synchronized? But with your IRF, we would obviously have problems (?).
Your tale of measuring the one-way speed of light, the relativity of simultaneity, and other voigts, struck my imagination. And what’s even more exciting is that if we look at the sky, we don’t have too much confidence that all the stars have flared up for us at the same time.
With kind regards
“…..Thanks to the Absolute, though, some of us are imbued with spiritual immune systems which enable us to stand up and walk outside the dimly fire-lit cave of physical & cosmological scientific inquiry into the full mid-day sun. Light changes speed entering Iceland spar, or even going through a glass of water.. what an insult to say it is constant on earth. The only place light is still is in the throne of the Creator….”
- the [standard] speed of light in vacuum is really fundamental constant, that is characteristic of Matter’s ether – [5]4D dense lattice of binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),,
- whereas everything in Matter is/are some specific [5]4D disturbances in the lattice, which always constantly change their states as “FLE flips”, and so always move in the lattice – so also in the spacetime – with 4D velocities that have equal absolute values being equal to the standard speed of light c=lP/tP, lP is the “FLE size”, tP is “FLE flip time”, practically for sure that are Planck length and Planck time.
In media light propagates with lesser speed, but that is because it constantly interacts with the media’ atoms.
Dear Sergey Sheludko,
- as a rule I comment only official physics, and professional physicists, and don’t comment alternative approaches, especially if the authors are vivid posters; so in this case only one note to your post:
“…Dear Sergey Shevchenko ,
[SS quote]>> - any number of normally working clocks, which are at rest in some inertial reference frame tick equally in sense that show equal time intervals, if that are one type clocks, they all will tick identically.//[end quote]….
Yes, correct, but tick exactly (different clocks with different but constant rate) if the clocks are at rest relative to the inertial system (IS). Without any connection with the letterset «reference».”
- I confirm what is in the SS quote above, whereas from your comment with “letterset «reference»” rather evidently follows that you aren’t professional physicist; and seems don’t understand what is this thread question.
In this case – and practically in all physics, though, the thing “clock” is used/considered only as the instrument, by using of which physicists measure time intervals between/of physical events/processes,
- including that is carried out in the main physical instruments – inertial reference frames, which contain etalons of distance/length in the 3D space, now “m”, and corresponding instruments – scaled rules; and etalon of time intervals now “s” and a system of specifically synchronized distant clocks; usually etalon and instruments for measurement of angles as well, though. The two main methods of synchronizations, i.e. matching of [if different] clocks’ tick rates and setting of initial the clocks’ showings [say “setting in zero”].
And only provided the above at experiments physicists measure the main initial parameters of practically any physical experiments – the distances and time intervals/moments, and further basing on these data measure velocities, momentums, energies, etc.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction