It's remarkable how such errors continue to proliferate. There's no ``twin paradox'' and the resolution is trivial:

The geodesic equation, that defines the geodesic-in flat spacetime-has a unique solution. The reason is that it's a second order differential equation and standard theorems imply that the solution defined by two boundary conditions-that define the two events ``separation'' and ``reunion'' respectively-exists and is unique.

This solution maximizes the proper time, by construction; but, of course, it is possible to define any other curve, in the same spacetime, between the two points. Such a curve has (a) a different proper time-which means it's another observer (but it's a ``twin'', since the endpoints are the same) since it's not a solution to the geodesic equation- (b) the value of this proper time is, necessarily, less than that along the gedesic and (c) proper time is invariant under global Lorentz transformations.

The error involves conflating proper time-which is invariant under global Lorentz transformations-and the coordinate time of each observer, the time-like parameter of the spacetime trajectory, that isn't invariant under global Lorentz transformations and, therefore, doesn't have any meaning, beyond being used to define the proper time. But how it's chosen doesn't matter.

The only quantities that matter are those that are invariant under the transformations that define the symmetries of the framework. For special relativity the transformations are global Lorentz transformations and the only quantities that matter are those that are invariant under such transformations. Any quantity that isn't invariant only is useful for constructing the invariants. Observers that have the same invariants are equivalent, those that don't aren't. The two ``twins'' aren't equivalent observers in the same spacetime, that's all.

Dear Stam Nicolis

you are really a mathematician and as such you have no idea of physics and logic.

Mathematicians are technicians and should behave as such.

JES

Mario Radovan I agree with you on both points 1. and 2.

The thought experiment linked below shows that the postulates of Special Relativity have to be discarded:

Preprint Special Relativity thought experiment

Then the question of the twin paradox and the question of the existence of a space rest frame and a universal reference time is addressed here:

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

Richard

Dear Mario,

there should be at least an agreement on what experiments provided:

twin clocks A and B set in synch at a very close distance and at rest in an inertial frame, will not be found in sync if A

leaves the common position and returns after a certain amount of time close to B.

The clocks don't need to be ``synchronized''. The reason is that each clock measures its ``proper time'' and, for the umpteenth time, this time is a Lorentz invariant quantity. The clocks that can be related by a global Lorentz transformation, will give the same value for this time, between the same two events(points in spacetime)-they're equivalent.

Time translation invariance-a property of flat spacetime-means that only differences in time, within any given frame, can be measured anyway. That's why synchronization isn't necessary. If one clock reads t1 at separation and t2 at reunion and the other clock reads T1 at separation and T2 at reunion, if the clocks describe observers that evolve along equivalent worldlines, then t2-t1=T2-T1. If the worldlines aren't equivalent this won't and can't happen.

The clocks that can't be related by a global Lorentz transformation can't and won't give the same value. Now between two events in spacetime (not space!) there's one geodesic and infinitely many curves that aren't geodesics. What distinguishes the geodesic from the others is that the proper time takes the greatest value along it-along any other curve the value is less. The confusion results in reasoning in space and time separately. All definitions are local to each observer, but the only quantities that can be compared are the invariant quantities-in the present situation it's the proper time of each observer. If they take equivalent paths in spacetime, the proper times will be equal, if they don't, they wont be.

The error in many of the presentations is that these stress that the two twins are related by a Lorentz transformation-they're in frames that just have a fixed relative velocity. In that case, indeed, the proper times can't differ, since frames that can be related by a global Lorentz transformation are equivalent, whatever the relative velocity. Indeed it's impossible to perform any measurement that could detect any relative velocity between frames that can be related by a global Lorentz transformation. The reason is that Lorentz invariant quantities don't depend on the relative velocity.

The twins age differently because their worldlines aren't equivalent-they can't be related by a global Lorentz transformation, they do not belong to two frames, that move at constant relative velocity. This is why their proper times differ and, thus, their ages. In particular, IF one twin evolves along the geodesic, the other, necessarily, can't and has aged less. Said equivalently: It's not possible to have two, inequivalent, inertial frames, between two events in spacetime.

The reason for the differential aging is in the interactions with third participants.

The proper time paths can be updated in relation to the known inertial "lighthouse".

If twins interact only between themselves, their paths are mirrored. Otherwise, any interaction with a propellant or a planet or whatever causes the symmetry to be broken and the probability of getting a world line of the same length approaches zero without limit.

In interactions, the choice of physical body plays a significant role in understanding what is the meaning of the results.

No interaction is involved. The only quantity that’s relevant is the length of the worldlines between the two fixed points in spacetime (it doesn't make sense in separating space and time, it just leads to the known confusion). If one’s a geodesic, the other can’t be and the former is longer than the latter. The mechanisms that lead to one being a geodesic and the other not don't matter. Whatever these might be doesn't affect the result.

Well, there's really a great confusion!

The answer is simple: There's a local frame of reference surrounding all masses (demonstrated in a paper in my profile). These local frames moves in general with velocities lower than 10^5 m/s (relative velocity of starts). It follows that when something is moving with a higher speed, its mass will grow (according to Lorentz factor) the increased mass will lead to a reduction of internal acceleration (according to Newton) which will increase the time need for any action (so a time dilation).

JES

Stam Nicolis ,

No, only local measurements are necessary and sufficient. It doesn’t make sense to ask about comparing coordinates, that belong to different frames, whether spatial or temporal.

t1 and t2 in one frame and T1 and T2 in the other are local coordinates. It doesn’t make sense to compare the t's with the T's individually, because they can be changed by a Lorentz transformation, defined in only one of the two frames. What matters is that t2-t1 and T2-T1 can be shown to be invariant under Lorentz transformations. If these are equal, the two observers are equivalent-they represent two different parametrizations of the same worldline in spacetime. If they’re different, they represent two different worldlines between the same points. And if one is the solution of the geodesic equation-i.e. an inertial observer-the other can’t be. The inertial observer takes the longest time-that’s what the geodesic equation describes- so the time taken along any other worldline is shorter.

Stam Nicolis

How can proper time paths differ under no interactions? Let's include spacetime curvature in interactions if not considered under the special relativity only (the original review layout of the twin paradox).

Because the two observers don't need to interact (apart from the two endpoints). It is possible to draw two time-like worldlines in flat spacetime that share the same endpoints but aren't related by a global Lorentz transformation. The only property that matters for the subject is that, if one is the geodesic defined by the boundary conditions, the other can't be. It is possible to describe non-uniform motion in flat spacetime: It's described by a worldline, that passes by the two points, that label the events in spacetime and that's not a solution of the geodesic equation-in that spacetime.

The fact that two time-like curves between the same spacetime points can't both be geodesics in the same spacetime suffices. It's not necessary to take into account the details of the causes that imply that the other time-like curve isn't a geodesic (the one that isn't a geodesic is subject to a force, that doesn't affect the oberver that evolves along the geodesic; and this, in turn, can be described as a geodesic in a curved spacetime. Nothing changes.) What matters is that, whatever they are, it is possible to define more than one time-like curve between two spacetime points, but only one can be a geodesic.

If one works in flat spacetime-which is the framework in which the problem is set- the resolution is an utter triviality. It's because people insist on working in space and time separately that they get confused. That might be expected in the beginning of the 20th century; there's no reason for this to persist now.

Things might seem less trivial in curved spacetime, but they're not, because, once more, the only fact that's relevant is the uniqueness of the solution of the geodesic equation, something that remains true, in this case, as well, if one takes care to work in the appropriate covering space, if closed time-like curves can be defined in the spacetime in question. Here, too, the solution of the geodesic equation takes the longest proper time between two spacetime points. Curvature does lead to other subtleties, of course.

Indeed choosing one of the curves to be the geodesic, that connects the two points is, just, for convenience. If neither is the geodesic, the proper times, still, will be different if the two curves can't be mapped one to the other by a reparametrization, which means that the proper times will differ. So the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the twins won't have the same age, when they meet again. It's not possible, absent further information, to say which one will be the elder.

Stam Nicolis

at least mention to whom you are replying ...

Stam Nicolis

In the interaction, a body is selected that does not define an inertial reference frame, but is part of some inertially referenced structure (as a whole) with internal interactions.

To make it possible to come back means that the body is chosen so that it separates itself from the larger inertial structure and transforms into another object through energy usage of interactions.

Essentially, there is no local place without timelike matter structure defining finiteness.

I'm not sure I agree.

A finite piece of paper defines a continuum of points in a plane. You say "there is no local place without timelike matter structure defining finiteness."

Does that mean that you believe the points cease to exist if the paper is removed from the space?

As another example, someone may draw a line on paper, defining points occupied by lead from the pencil. Do those points cease to exist if the line is erased?

I do not agree that the existence of place is contingent on the occupation of that place by physical bodies.

Only the description of place is contingent on the existence of an observer, or a landmark, because a location cannot be described without reference to other location.

Jonathan Doolin,

The point is just to see the priority; condensed matter matters, virtual background not.

The another principle is the observation about the wrong conclusion that you could move back and forth in space but not in time. The truth is that you can go only forward in spacetime. If you return to some "place" it's only due to emergent structures having time of life - if study on reduced elements, the surroundings are all different time to time, of course.

“… ‘Why is a debate about twin(s) paradox so bad?”… I consider the entire discourse about the relativity of time meaningless and useless; but a discourse about twins paradox is especially bad.…..”

- that “the entire discourse about the relativity of time meaningless and useless” isn’t correct. The SR till now is the standard theory in mainstream physics, despite of that it is based on a number of fundamentally wrong postulates, including the couple ones from which any number of really absurd consequences completely rigorously, directly, and unambiguously, follow;

- the simplest one is the “Dingle objection” to the SR – from the postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and so that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate completely rigorously, directly, and unambiguously, it follows that, say, if there are two relatively moving frames, then every observer completely equally legitimately ages faster then the observer in other frame, and, simultaneously, ages slower than the observer in the other frame – what is evident absurdity.

However the Dingle objection is so evident, that it is practically isn’t discussed in any mainstream physics publications, whereas the “twin paradox” is discussed very actively, and now there are a rather large number of solutions of the paradox in well respectable mainstream journals, and in innumerous pop-scientific publication sources, discourses, etc., including in this thread, as, say,

“…It's remarkable how such errors continue to proliferate. There's no ``twin paradox'' and the resolution is trivial: The geodesic equation, that defines the geodesic-in flat spacetime-has a unique solution. ….”, etc.

- that by no means is some “solution”, that is nothing else than only some concrete description in standard SR of the known seems yet in 1906, when there weren’t any “geodesics”, fact, that if some observer is in some inertial frame, and other makes some clos-loop travel, returning to the “homebody”, the traveler will be younger than the homebody;

- and the “paradox” is in that if the traveler moved inertialy, then in accordance with the SR postulates above at meeting after the travel both twins must be simultaneously younger and older each other. I.e. really the paradox is two times application of the Dingle objection, however in this case the application is well complicated, and so, again, despite of that the paradox fundamentally has only one scientific solution “the SR postulates [above] are wrong, Matter’s spacetime is absolute and the frames aren’t absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate”,

- again, the rather long-text publications with “solutions” are numerous, and are really either some descriptions above or use some hidden mathematical tricks, that are outside the SR, and sometimes outside physics at all . Though from seems 1960s there was – and in many cases is till now in published texts - the unique solution, which is in complete accordance with the SR, and just so really from this solution any number of absurdities also rigorously follow, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322798185_The_informational_model_twin_paradox; though after the earlier paper https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51942303_Space_and_Time was published in arXiv in 2013, this “solution” in the corresponding Wiki article, which was very in detail , in a few months transformed into a short passage, but, again, the original version remains in most of other publications.

Cheers

Stam Nicolis

"If these are equal, the two observers are equivalent-they represent two different parametrizations of the same worldline in spacetime"

Would you agree it is possible for t2-t1 = T2-T1 in flat spacetime for two different world-lines, as the example provided shows?

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/a1vvejz9xs

Then they’re equivalent, not, in fact, different.

The two paths are mirror images of one another. Not the same, since they go through different regions of space.

But I suppose if you formed your equivalence relation saying two paths are equivalent provided that you *could* in principle find a global Lorentz Transformation that would convert one to the other, then these two paths would be equivalent by that definition. Much as two protons are DIFFERENT protons, but they are in all respects alike, physically, so they might be called equivalent particles.

The Lorentz Transformation in this case would be a 180 degree rotation around the E1, E2 axis, which is marked by a black dashed line in https://www.desmos.com/calculator/gzwgfvytuw

We might also get across the idea by calling the two distinct paths "congruent", rather than saying the two are "the same".

SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect. First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes. See

Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

The solution to the twin paradox is that space-time transformation is not real.

There is a constant of the speed of light. However, it produces an invariant system in which the speed of light and time varies in direct proportion. This is time-light relativity.

Preprint Time-light relativity theory

Stoke was correct (1845) the Earth (as any other mass) is followed by a medium surrounding it and following it through space.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson ,

"Stoke was correct (1845) the Earth (as any other mass) is followed by a medium surrounding it and following it through space."

Stoke was not so incorrect in affirming that... although the luminiferous aether he was talking about was singled out...........

unfortunately Stokes, Maxwell, Lorentz, Faraday et al were a bit too focused in a sort of "material medium" which does not exist in the form they imagined it to be...

Stefano Quattrini

I completely agree with your comment. The correct medium is quite different from the "aethere" of the past. But, never the leas, the special theory must be wrong if a medium exist.

JES

“…unfortunately Stokes, Maxwell, Lorentz, Faraday et al were a bit too focused in a sort of "material medium" which does not exist in the form they imagined it to be

→ I completely agree with your comment. The correct medium is quite different from the "aethere" of the past. But, never the leas, the special theory must be wrong if a medium exist.…..”

- really in the physicists list above Lorentz wasn’t too focused in a sort of the "material medium" “Matter’s aether”, but he developed the theory that is applicable in the absolute Matter’s spacetime, where, in principle, some “luminiferous ether” can exist. That is another case, that since for Lorentz and Poincaré the fundamental phenomena/notions , first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, were, and in mainstream philosophy and sciences are till now, fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,

- and so in every case, when some authors develop some fundamental theory, the result completely obligatorily logically is based on some really transcendent/mystic/irrational postulates; in this case in the Lorentz-Poincaré theory some mystic “local space” and “local time”, which by some mystic way transform at motion of inertial reference frames in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, were postulated.

However in 1908 SR version, which is standard physical theory now, quite more transcendent/mystic/irrational “fundamental properties and effects of Matter’s space/time/spacetime” were postulated – that the letters in the transformations relate not to some points in local space and time in the absolute spacetime, but relate to all/every points in whole spacetime; and so the Lorentz transformations describe real whole space/time/spacetime transformations,

- what was – and is till now in the mainstream physics – fundamentally wrong.

Again in this thread – the fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, scientifically defined only in framework of the 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

- and, more concretely in Matter, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics;

- where it is rigorously shown that Matter’s spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where the ultimate base of Matter – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE] – just real “aether” - is placed, and practically everything in Matter is determined by the logical construction and properties of FLEs.

Besides in the model the experiments in which the absolute motion in the 3DXYZ space can be observed and the absolute velocity in this space can be measured – what Poincaré claimed as that is impossible – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible.

Nonetheless because of both – Lorentz-Poincaré and standard now SR – are based on fundamentally correct, and indeed extremely mighty, Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, these theories are well correctly applicable in everyday physical practice.

The SR becomes to be a fundamental obstacle only at fundamental physics development, more in this case, see the last link above.

Cheers

0. Various formal and technical things have been put forward here; but in my view, the very idea of the relativity of time is ontologically flawed, and inevitably leads to problems. Let me put forward several fragments from my book In the Shadow of Time (Amazon/Kindle), which show the essence of my view of time and of the idea of relativity.

1. - I consider appropriate to classify (divide) all that exists or can be imagined into the following three classes of entities: (1) the class of physical entities, (2) the class of mental entities, and (3) the class of abstract entities. Let us denote the class of physical entities by C1, the class of mental entities by C2, and the class of abstract entities by C3. Stones, rivers and bodies belong to C1; emotions and thoughts belong to C2; numbers, languages and symphonies belong to C3. These classes show three basic ontological dimensions of existence and reality.

2. - It is wrong to start from the assumption that events take place "in time" and that a change "needs time" to take place. Change is an intrinsic feature of physical reality, which is a process of becoming and vanishing; change is also a basic feature of the human perception and understanding of that reality. Change is ontologically and epistemologically prior to time: we perceive change, not time. If there were no change, we would not speak about time; people would have not created this concept. Time is an abstract means by which the mind describes its perception and understanding of reality as a process and change. Time does not exist beyond the human mind and language, except in the realm of abstract entities (C3) created by the human mind and language.

3. - Change is intrinsic to physical reality: change simply is ... Change is perceived directly; time is created by the mind, on the basis of the direct experience of the changing physical reality (C1). Time is an abstract means by which the mind describes its perception and understanding of reality as a process and change. Time is an element of language; time does not exist in physical reality; it is not an ingredient of physical reality.

4. - We can measure that muons "live longer" when they move at high speed; the rest of the story is a matter of interpretation. Muons are processes (they decay); we can assume that with the increase of speed at which muons move, these processes slow down, so that their lifetime increases. The other option is to interpret the same measurable fact by the assumption that time flows slower for the moving muons; such interpretation looks exciting but it brings big problems (contradiction).

5. - We can accept the empirical fact that with the increase of speed, muons live longer, clocks tick slower and so forth; but this does not mean that for those entities time flows slower. The fact that processes slow down in some conditions does not mean that time slows down for them; on the other hand, the assumption that time slows down creates problems which relativists have not managed to solve, and which may not be solvable in a coherent way. Tricks with "acceleration" and similar do not help.

6. - The theory of relativity has its charm, but I am not sure that it can be really understood, because it looks ontologically wrong and logically inconsistent. In his book About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, Paul Davies says that this theory has remained "frustratingly unfinished". Einstein "triggered a revolution in our understanding", but he "left things in a curiously unfinished state", so that "we are still a long way from solving the riddle of time". In spite of all frustrations, Davies holds that we must embrace ideas of the relativity theory and "move on". He may be right; but if we embrace ontologically inadequate assumptions we will not reach far. The assumption (of General Relativity) that space and time are "physical things" and "malleable" seems wrong to me. Time and space are measures; measures are human creations and abstract entities, and they should better not be considered malleable.

7. - I doubt that the "frustratingly unfinished" story about the relativity of time can be really understood. Einstein lived for some fifty years after he published his Special Relativity; why did he not "finish" this story? Davies warns his readers that after reading his book they could be confused even more than they were confused before reading it. But "that's all right", he says; "I was more confused myself after writing it". I can understand him. If you hold that my view of time is not good, I would be glad to hear what is wrong in it.

Let me add one more fragment from my book.

5.14 - Does the theory that preaches the slowing down of time (SR) bring to people the possibility to live longer or even forever? Not really. The slowing down of time in the theory of relativity does not change anything in lives of mortal people. SR says that if you travel fast in relation to me, your time, measured by me (from my place) will flow slowly; but your time measured by you (at your place) will not be affected by my measurement nor by your speed. You are getting older equally, regardless of how fast you travel in relation to me or in relation to the pole-star.

If you move in a spaceship very fast, then "in the frame of reference of Earth, your life span of seventy-five years occupies billions of years of Earth time"; but "in your own frame of reference, seventy-five years remains seventy-five years", explains Davies. "You can't use relativistic time dilation to delay your own aging process relative to your own experience of time, only relative to someone else's". This is disappointing indeed; the theory of relativity (ST) has told us that with the increase of speed, time flows slower, and that at the speed of light time stands still. This theory has shown us the way toward eternity; but then it has told us that this was only an illusion. Seventy-five years remains seventy-five years, regardless of what you do. We are getting old and die, regardless of how fast we move. I hoped that this fable about the relativity of time would have a happier end; old narratives and gods were more generous toward the wretched mortal creatures yearning for eternity.

I hope you realize that if you have a twin getting older, view from one twin, then the other twin get younger seen from the other twin. This means that the time will go faster for one twin and slower for the other one!

JES

Stellan Gustafsson - Yes, and this holds for both twins, which creates the paradox.

Dear Mario Radovan

In other words, it is like an aeroplane moving away from us. We see it getting smaller and smaller. The passengers have the same experience. As anyone knows this is a visual illusion and nobody is getting smaller or bigger at all, and nobody has dared to create a new science out of this phenomenon.

However, we have accepted relativity with the help of the so-called thought experiment which is a new name for metaphysics or experiment free science.

Dear Mario Radovan

It is possible to verify the velocity and the direction of the motion of our solar system in relation to “absolute space” (CMBR dipole).[1] Moreover, there exists a universal scalar field (the Higgs field) that is 100% flat in vacuum space (= every region in space where there is no rest mass). Nearly the whole universe is vacuum space thus the universal scalar field represents a rigid lattice of scalars because every scalar has exactly the same magnitude. The consequence is that space cannot curve at all and every velocity is absolute in relation to the rest frame of our universe (actually the Higgs field). Thus time is a constant too (quantum time). Relativity represents just a limited point of view.

The velocity of a single quantum of energy (h) within the electromagnetic field is the constant speed of light. A local concentration of energy (n x h) cannot be transferred with the speed of light because all the quanta (n x h) must move in the same direction and with the same mutual position to each other. Unfortunately amounts of concentrated energy (e.g. a rest mass carrying particle) only exists if the concentrated energy is a loop on its own (spin).

Accelerating a concentration of energy means that we have to transform an amount of the energy that creates the spin of the particle into energy in linear motion. Thus if we want to accelerate the particle till it has the speed of light all the spin (local loop of energy) has stopped. Now the observer of the particle will conclude that the “time” of the particle – its detectable changes at the boundary (spin) – has stopped. There is evidence because non-stable particles have a decay time. If we accelerate a non-stable particle the decay time will take more duration. In other words, the twin brother in the rocket will have less “internal changes” than the twin brother who stays behind. Just because in the rocket his velocity in relation to "absolute space" is higher.

The “hidden” concept is the notion that space itself – known as the basic quantum fields in QFT – is in rest and has properties that determine physical reality and not the opposite (the observable/detectable phenomena).[2]

With kind regards, Sydney

References:

Sydney Ernest Grimm - Thank you for your explanations. I am not sure that these explanations support the standard discourse of the theory of relativity. Anyway, in an earlier post I wrote:

Change is intrinsic to physical reality: change simply is ... Change is perceived directly; time is created by the mind, on the basis of the direct experience of the changing physical reality. Time is an abstract means by which the mind describes its perception and understanding of reality as a process and change. Time is an element of language; time does not exist in physical reality; it is not an ingredient of physical reality.

We can accept the empirical fact that with the increase of speed, muons live longer, clocks tick slower and so forth; but this does not mean that for those entities time flows slower. The fact that processes slow down in some conditions does not mean that time slows down for them; on the other hand, the assumption that time slows down creates problems which relativists have not managed to solve, and which may not be solvable in a coherent way.

In sum, I hold that time does not flow; time is an "artificial bank" in relation to which physical reality "flows" (changes), and it may do that in various ways in various conditions.

I wonder why nobody make a logical step between time delay and mass increase?

If the "relativistic mass" increase then the time to do something will increase with the same factor.

So, the question is not about time but about mass.

JES

Dear Mario Radovan

I am afraid there exists no standard discourse about the theory of relativity. Most renowned scientific magazines reject articles about the subject. It is “not done” to doubt the conceptual framework of the theory of relativity. Although nowadays there is experimental evidence that the foundations of the theory of relativity must be wrong (like the electromagnetic field is a restframe).

I agree that time is change. But energy is also similar to change. So the subject is difficult to grasp. In general I can state that all the changes in the universe are caused by the electromagnetic field. Even the local changes of the scalars of the Higgs field are created by the electromagnetic field. Unfortunately I cannot state that local changes of the electromagnetic field only exists as mental objects in the human mind.

Time as we know it, is expressed with the help of a periodic relation (the duration of a day in relation to the duration of a year, etc.). Unfortunately, the observable/detectable phenomena that are “created” by the electromagnetic field represent relations too. Actually, we cannot measure absolute values, we only measure mutual relations. Therefore we use logic to conclude that there exist universal properties, like the speed of light, Planck’s constant. And conservation laws, and... time.

The electromagnetic field – as a basic quantum field – must have a structure. Otherwise its properties cannot create local phenomena that have a structure (particles, atoms, etc.). A structure is build up by spatial units thus I can state that a change at one side of the unit will have a delay of time till it is detectable at the other side of the unit. The velocity of the propagation is the speed of light and the amount of change is Planck’s constant. In other words, it is the metric of the structure of the electromagnetic field that determines the duration of the propagation of 1 quantum from one side to the opposite side of the unit, everywhere in the universe. It can be calculated too and the duration is about 6 x 10-23 sec. That’s is the constant of quantum time.

However, the pass on of the quantum within the metric “creates” time. And because all the changes of the electromagnetic field in the universe are conserved, we have to conclude that all the changes in the universe must be synchronized. But we cannot observe the synchronization because all the observable changes are not identical (different particles, different atoms, etc.). However, in daily live we have some kind of a “feeling” that time – change – is a universal property of our universe.

So I agree with you that time is a human “construct”, although there is an underlying physical causation for the existence of the “construct”.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm - From your previous post: - If we accelerate a non-stable particle the decay time will take more duration. In other words, the twin brother in the rocket will have less “internal changes” than the twin brother who stays behind. Just because in the rocket his velocity in relation to "absolute space" is higher.

From my earlier post: If you move in a spaceship very fast, then "in the frame of reference of Earth, your life span of seventy-five years occupies billions of years of Earth time"; but "in your own frame of reference, seventy-five years remains seventy-five years", explains Davies. "You can't use relativistic time dilation to delay your own aging process relative to your own experience of time, only relative to someone else's." (quotations are from Paul Davies: About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution).

My question: Are your claim and Davies' claims (quoted in my post) compatible? They may be, but I am not sure they are. I am trying to clarify (to myself) this problem of "aging".

Dear Mario Radovan

If a physician can measure the evolution of the internal changes inside the human body, he/she will conclude that the twin brother in the rocket has less aged. But during the separation of both twins none of them has the experience that his personal notion of time has changed (Paul Davies opinion). But that’s an experience in relation to quantum time.

Psychologists are not convinced because they have evidence that time as a human experience doesn’t flow always in a regular way. For example somebody falls from a high building and during the period the person is falling he sees his whole live passing like it is a video. But the duration of the fall is only a couple of seconds. Even if the person sees only fragments of his live, a couple of seconds is too short to have that experience.

In daily live we also don’t have the experience that time is flowing in a steady way. Sometimes it is flowing really fast and sometimes it is like the minutes don’t want to pass. Or we awake after a long, long dream and the clock shows it only lasted a couple of minutes. Nevertheless, we don’t have the experience that we have lost or gained some regular time (quantum time).

Quantum time originates from the electromagnetic field. Actually it is the universal electric field (the origin of the quantum of energy). But there is the corresponding magnetic field too. Thus if a quantum of energy changes position it generates a corresponding vector within the structure of the magnetic field (and visa versa). But a 1-dimensional vector doesn’t represent energy, it only determines the direction of the flow of energy (quanta). The consequence is that “vector time” has no duration, it acts instantaneous. Although the origin of the change of the magnitude of a vector is the change of energy (“quanta transfer”).

The physics Noble prize 2022 is awarded to 3 researchers who did experiments that showed that the entanglement of phenomena is real (e.g. the entanglement of the polarization of 2 electromagnetic waves). That means that if we change the polarization of one wave, the other wave immediately changes its polarization too, no matter how far both waves are apart (thus the speed of light isn’t part of the cause behind the changes). Conclusion: our universe is a non-local universe because everything influences everything at exactly the same moment. Actually entanglement seems to be related to “vector time” (instantaneous change).

I cannot say that Paul Davies opinion (or my opinion) is wrong because it is in agreement with what we know about quantum time. But the research of psychologists cannot be ignored either. The electromagnetic field exists of 2 different fields with different properties. Einstein’s theory of Special relativity is limited to the properties of the universal electric field (speed of light). He had the opinion (1905) that information is energy and energy cannot be transferred with a velocity > c. But the 2022 Noble prize shows that “times have changed”.

With kind regards, Sydney

The explanation of entanglement is quite simple:

The two photons polarisation is created in the interaction between them before leaving the atom that produced them i.e, they have opposite polarisation already when they leave the atom.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

Maybe the explanation of entanglement is quite simple, but as far as I know we can only generate symmetrical entanglements. That means that 2 phenomena share a distinct property that actually don’t exist. For example the polarization of wave A is opposite to the polarization of wave B. Thus if we imagine that we can put both waves together we double the amount of energy but the whole polarization will vanish. In general symmetrical entanglement shows that everything must be entangled – an instantaneous mutual influence – because energy and momentum are both conserved in our universe.

Besides that, theoretical physics isn’t famous for its explanation of physical reality. An example.

At the moment MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) is in the picture again because the predictions are in line with the astronomical observations (e.g. the velocity of the rotation of galaxies). That is why there are theorists who argue that we must forget the existence of dark matter.

But we don’t know what is behind Newtonian gravity, modified or not. Einstein’s aim to describe the origin of the force of gravity (his theory of General relativity) was caused by the lack of a clarification for the existence of Newtonian gravity. Newton described gravity as a pull force between matter objects but that is no clarification. That is mainly a description of what we observe. Thus if we embrace MOND, we still don’t know the origin of the force of gravitation.

The same with quantum mechanics (QM). There is a formalism that can predict the outcome of experiments in an accurate way but we don’t know what is really going on at the smallest scale size. Thus QM isn’t a clarification, it is an accurate description (and of course with related concepts).

So I am afraid that the simple explanation of entanglement is limited to a description and doesn’t represent a clarification.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm - "... Newton described gravity as a pull force between matter objects but that is no clarification. That is mainly a description of what we observe. Thus if we embrace MOND, we still don’t know the origin of the force of gravitation. ..."

I am not an expert in these things; but I would make an incidental remark here. Every explanation must stop somewhere. For every explanation it is possible to ask for "the origin" of those entities on which the explanation is based. This hold for every explanation.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

You are treating the photon as an EM-wave. This is wrong. This comes from the usual stupid mathematicians. The photon and the neutrino are objects which are not following the law E=mc^2.

There are several problems with such a view, the most evident is the following: If the EM-wave is made up of photons then these must have the same frequency and phase as the EM-wave, but then the EM-wave should be a LASER! It's not.

Gravitation is also quite simple but it's not the moment to give an explanation.

The quantum mechanic is just a superficial theory limited by the use of the associated wave. It will soon be demonstrated that it's wrong. The development of extremely short pulsed LASERS will give a sufficient detail picture of the atoms so that the electron trajectories will be visible. They are completely different then those proposed by the QM.

JES

Sydney Ernest Grimm - "If a physician can measure the evolution of the internal changes inside the human body, he/she will conclude that the twin brother in the rocket has less aged."

Let it be so; but the twin on the earth travelled with the same speed in relation to the twin in the rocket, as the twin in the rocket travelled in relation to the twin on the earth. So, I hold that the discourse about the relativity of time does not manage to explain what it claims it happens in reality. The standard discourse about the "asymmetry" between the twins does not seem convincing (coherent) to me.

Dear Mario Radovan

“Every explanation must stop somewhere. For every explanation it is possible to ask for "the origin" of those entities on which the explanation is based. This hold for every explanation.”

You are right if the “proof” is restricted to a clarification with the help of an underlying creating structure (a smaller scale size). That is what high energy physicists try to get with the help of particle colliders: the discovery of the properties of the smallest particles to understand larger configurations of energy.

But the consequences of conservation laws and constants are another type of “proof”. These universal properties are the result of reasoning (logic) and that is what the best clarification will describe: an explanation that is mathematical “true” no matter if we change our point of view.

“The standard discourse about the "asymmetry" between the twins does not seem convincing (coherent) to me.”

Suppose that one twin brother measure the CMBR dipole from his position on the surface of the Earth. The other twin does the measurements from the rocket, orbiting the Earth. The result will be that both CMBR dipoles differ from each other. Thus both twin brothers have a different absolute velocity in relation to the rest frame of our universe (in practice the electromagnetic field in vacuum space). Thus both have “experienced” a different amount of change in relation to the universal structure of space (= the structure of the basic quantum fields).

Anyway, the most used argument in relation to the twin paradox is that the difference is the result of the acceleration and deceleration of the rocket. That argument is just funny because in the theory of Special relativity acceleration and deacceleration are symmetrical transformations.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm - "the most used argument in relation to the twin paradox is that the difference is the result of the acceleration and deceleration of the rocket. That argument is just funny because in the theory of Special relativity acceleration and deacceleration are symmetrical transformations."

I agree; but this argument has been used by many, including the "great physicist Richard F..."

Dear Mario Radovan

Unfortunately, you are right. In practice there is a lot of incomprehensible physics. A whole universe out of a singularity is (was) maybe the most striking example. But we have to live with the fact that there exist a large amount of peer reviewed papers that are contradicting each other. It is not by accident that there exists stagnation in theoretical physics for at least half a century.

Personally I don’t worry about it because it doesn’t hinder research. The only problem is that it frustrates the communication about the foundations of physics.

With kind regards, Sydney

I wonder if any of the last responders are actual physicists...

“…I wonder if any of the last responders are actual physicists..…”

- yeah, the last series of posts is rather strange series of rather strange posts; and, at that, is rather long, while the posters, regrettably are rather, if too, active;

- whereas the thread question was scientifically answered already in the SS post October 29, page 2, first of all that the “twin paradox” problem is nothing else than two times applied quite evident “Dingle objection to the SR”, so numerous “solutions” of the problem are fundamentally nothing else than some mathematical or physical unscientific tricks.

Including that the twins’ frames aren’t equivalent since the traveler’s one is 4 times accelerated – at any/every time moments for both frames the Lorentz transformations are valid,

- and so there exist only one scientific solution: the traveler is younger than the homebody because of that the SR postulates, that Matter’s spacetime isn’t absolute, and that so all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate, are wrong. More see the pointed above SS post.

Cheers

Dear SS, I can't see a better situation after your reaction.

Sydney Ernest Grimm

Yes, "Maybe the explanation of entanglement is quite simple". For example, in the technique of radio broadcasting, it means that "music, TV signal" are faithfully reproduced from the transmitting antenna to the receiving antenna with a delay of the distance between the antennas.

In this way, it is possible to implement the mutual transfer of quantum data between the registers of the quantum computer.

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

Entanglement is supposed to act instantaneous. That means that the entanglement between 2 phenomena – separated from each other – acts synchronous. The consequence is that entanglement shows that our universe is non-local (see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/).

The non-locality of our universe was established theoretically since the moment we accepted that all the energy and momentum in the universe must be conserved (law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum). Both conservation laws envelope all the changes in the universe. That means that both conservation laws envelope all the changes (QFT) within the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field (together: electromagnetic field). We cannot add or subtract energy or momentum from the electromagnetic field without effecting everything in the whole universe at exactly the same moment (= non-locality).

In classic physics we use concepts like cause and effect. But in a non-local universe cause and effect is not what it seems to be, because every local change is a cause and also an effect at exactly the same moment. Thus how we interpret physical reality depends on the preferred point of view we use in relation to the observations/measurements. Actually, our most preferred point of view is still the classical point of view: phenomenological physics. Just because we are a phenomenon too.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear ES,

“…Dear SS, I can't see a better situation after your reaction....”

- ? in last time the strange series of strange posts about the “twin paradox” problem looks as well slowed; and though a next strange post appeared, but it is started by other than posters before poster, and, though it is about some “entanglement” that has again too strange relation to the “twin paradox” problem

– in this case principally cannot be some “entangled twins”, the posting isn’t too vivid now, and readers, who really want to understand what is the “twin paradox”, without too much problems can read the scientific explanation in SS posts on pages, first of all 2, and 3, 5.

Cheers

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

The article you mentioned is not about "Entanglement is supposed to act instantaneous", but it doesn't say the opposite either.

The article states:

There are so many received ideas. That of the photon's velocity is one.

In reality the photon starts with low velocity at the moment of its creation, it's than accelerated using the interaction with the surrounding EM-field. During this time it interacts with the other photon so that they obtain opposite handedness in their rotation (which explains the entanglement). It's in fact a particle which doesn't follow the law E=mc^2 (which is true also for the neutrino).

JES

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

I tried to show you with the help of the link – the easy to read SA article – that non-locality isn’t speculative physics. It is widely accepted physics and that is why the experimental evidence is honored with the 2022 Physics Noble prize.

Anyway, Wikipedia has a “technical” topic about entanglement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

With kind regards, Sydney

Let me put forward a remark about the flow of time (from my book In the Shadow of Time).

In his book about time and relativity, Paul Davies speaks about the flow of time; but toward the end the book, he raises the question, to which his book does not give an answer. "Suppose you met an alien who claimed he had no idea what you meant by the flow of time"; how would you describe the flow of time to such an alien; "what would you say to convince him of its reality?" - asks Davies. A good question indeed; I am such an alien, and my answer to Davies' question runs as follows: nothing. There is nothing "convincing" that could be said about the nonexistent flow of time.

We are not getting older because of the "flow of time", but because we are directed processes which take place in the way they do. We flow and pass away, not time. Time does not flow because it is an abstract entity created by the human mind. Time and space are elements of the conceptual system (language) by means of which we speak about the changing (flowing) physical entities.

Let me put forward a remark about the nature of time (from my book In the Shadow of Time).

... it is said that physicists are divided between two options: to "pin down" (adopt) a sort of "master time", as a "natural measure of change", or to "define time completely out of existence". I like the expression "a natural measure of change"; I have preached something like this for many years. I do not call this "measure of change" natural, but artificial, because all measures are human creations and they are artificial. Regarding the dilemma about which of the two options to choose, I argue that both of them must be adopted. Because (1) time is a measure of change, and (2) time does not exist in the physical world; time is an abstract entity created by the human mind.

My favourite ideological ally, the Roman thinker and poet Lucretius, who lived in the first century, claimed that "time cannot itself exist, but from the flight of things we get a sense of time". Therefore, he considered time a creation of the human mind, not a "physical thing", as relativists call it. "Could it be that, after millennia of deliberation about time, we shall finally discover that it doesn't really exist as a basic ingredient of reality"? - asks Paul Davies at the end of his book in which he calls time a "physical thing", which is malleable and active. My answer: it is high time for physics to make this "monumental first step"; the wise Lucretius did it two thousand years ago.

Mario Radovan

Can Intervals of time be compared and a measure of time devised?

Like the period of a pendulum, length of year, lunar cycle, clock tickings, falling of a stone from a certain height, and other physical and chemical changes that occur in nature or man-made.

Regards

Mario Radovan

If we extend the Lucretius argument, spatial distances cannot exist without the existence of physical objects, that include living things.

( I don’t intend to place time intervals and spatial distances at par. They can’t be mixed as they measure totally different entities.)

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

Yes, as you stated before: . In connection with "entangled photons", it is of fundamental importance that the information (music, TV picture), transmitted by photons from the transmitting antenna, reaches all our receivers in the same quality. I'm glad that "evidence, honored with the 2022 Physics Noble prize" also supports my work:Research Proposal What is a photon really

Time is “a free creation of the human mind”. The world is full of cyclical events, and we have memory (and we can count). “I have seen this happen before...it was ten sunrises ago!”. If there were no cyclical events or if we had no memory, there wouldn't be a concept of time.

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

Sorry, I have no knowledge about “hidden variables in objects”. Actually, the whole subject of hidden variables is a tricky because it is widely known that there is a lack of knowledge about the foundations of QM (and therefore the related foundations of QFT too). Thus it is more reasonable to point to the incomplete concepts in theoretical physics. The so called “hidden variables” seems to be just a term to express a lack of knowledge about physical reality at the smallest scale size.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

>

It is known from radio transmitting technology that photons carry information from the transmitting antenna to our receivers. A transmitting antenna as an object has "hidden variables", which are manifestations of nested objects, such as metal atoms, with orbits of electrons around the nuclei of atoms.

I don't know if this will be enough for you, as I understand it: Until it was proven that photons are "entangled photons", it could not be said that even "hidden variables" in objects that emit photons are "entangled".

For example, an metal atom in a transmitting antenna can be compared to a solar system with planets. We know that every planet, as well as the Sun, has an invariable inclination of its rotation axis in space with respect to the galaxy, which means that all the bodies of the solar system are "entangled", therefore the planets orbit the Sun in elliptical roads. If it were not so, the solar system will disintegrate.

Regards

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

Sorry, there is some miscommunication. The term “hidden variables” was used in the first half of the 20th century to underscore that Quantum Mechanics must be an incomplete theory. And the incompleteness was thought to be related to the existence of instantaneous interactions (non-locality). An example is the EPR-paradox.

The process of transmitting photons with the help of antennas is partly a macroscopic process because of the size of the wave length of the electromagnetic waves. That doesn’t mean that there is nothing more to explore, it only means that hidden variables are thought to originate from the smallest scale size.

The stationary inclination of the rotation axis of the solar system is part of modern research about the properties of space itself. That means that the supposed mutual influences between vacuum space and the celestial bodies are the result of the existence of basic quantum fields everywhere in the universe.

With kind regards, Sydney

Chandru Iyer - "If we extend the Lucretius argument, spatial distances cannot exist without the existence of physical objects, ..." - This is what Leibniz argued, in his (indirect) debate with Newton. And I agree with Leibniz.

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

>

We live in a physical object called "Solar System". The physical objects that are around us are molecules. The object "Molecule" consists of atoms and the object "Atom" consists of electrons and protons, we can continue what the object "Electron" and the object "Proton" consist of.

Even the transmitting antenna, the "Antenna" object, consists of countless nested "Atom" objects, since in metals it is difficult to talk about "Molecule" objects. The states of "Atom" objects are "hidden variables" for us. At the moment of emission of "information photons" from the "Antenna" object, photons are emitted from the "Atom" objects, already "entangled". Since at that moment it is a local interaction of photons with "Atom" objects, "Atom" objects are also "entangled" with photons. "Entangled" photons moving away from the "Antenna" object, carry "entangled" information about the "hidden variables" of the "Antenna" object, from the time when the photons were emitted.

Note that the objects states of the "Solar System" object are "hidden variables" for other objects in the "Galaxy" object. Photons emitted from the "Solar System" object provide information about "hidden variables" for other objects in the "Galaxy" object, but in the macro world the "hidden variables" are no longer "hidden" due to the resolving power of our devices. This can be used to study "hidden variables" in the microworld. See also: Research Proposal Earth-Sun, EM dipole solution

Note: It is possible that I modified the term "Entangled", but I don't know how to answer to your objections.

Regards

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

I have no objections in the sense that everyone uses a certain point of view to think about physical reality. But if we want to communicate about physical reality too, we must share some terms and concepts to make communication possible. Moreover, mostly our personal point of view is not unique because others had nearly the same thoughts in the past (like the impressive contributions of the ancient Greek philosophers).

I hope you can agree that the electromagnetic field is in rest in relation to the motion of all the observable and detectable phenomena (particles, atoms, objects, celestial bodies, etc.). The prove is simple: the existence of 2 particles without rest mass that move in opposite direction (the electromagnetic field doesn’t split at all). Only if we have the opinion that all the phenomena exist independent from the basic quantum fields – the creators of physical reality in QFT – this point of view has no meaning. Like in classic physics because at that time it was thought that all the properties in the universe originate from the phenomena itself.

The consequence of the existence of the rest frame is that our solar system is not a nice “closed” configuration of a star with planets that circle around the star. The circular/elliptical orbits of the planets only exists in our mind. In relation to the rest frame of the electromagnetic field the planets move in a swirling way around the star that swirls around the centre of the Milky Way, etc. And at a smaller scale size the situation don’t differ much because the electrons around the nucleus of an atom swirl too. And molecules, etc., etc.

The electromagnetic field is a composition of 2 fields. The universal electric field that is known as the origin of quantized amounts of change in space and time (Planck’s constant) and the corresponding magnetic field, a vector field. Thus if at a point in vacuum space the electric field generates a quantum of energy, we will observe that the magnetic field has generated a corresponding vector at exactly the same moment at the same position.

The changes of the electric field are 3 dimensional. That is why the structure of the electric field can be described as a topological field. And every quantized change that is propagated in a linear way within the structure of the electric field has the speed of light. But the corresponding vectors of the magnetic field are 1 dimensional and don’t transfer energy (= topological deformation). Thus the propagation of the vectors of the magnetic field in space and time is instantaneous. The influence is only limited by the other vectors in vacuum space. I write “vacuum space” because vectors need a rigid medium to be transferred and only in vacuum space the universal scalar field (Higgs field) is perfectly flat. Between 2 adjacent scalars with different magnitudes there is no propagation of vectors possible.

The entanglement of the polarization of 2 electromagnetic waves that are created at the same moment at the same “point” in space shows the instantaneous influence of the magnetic field everywhere in vacuum space (and prove the reliability of the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum). That’s what the 2022 Physics Noble prize honored.

Thus I don’t object your thoughts about physical reality (I understand what you mean). But the used terms like “hidden variables, entanglement, etc.” differ from the usual interpretations and related concepts. That makes it difficult to agree without studying all the consequences.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

>

The EM field is related to the movement of EM charges in the "Antenna" object.

I wrote:

When we observe "Entangled" photons at any time, we do not observe a mutual change in the positions of their charges. If it were not so, the information about the "hidden variables" of the "Antenna" object would be disturbed.

I agree: . They can be "hidden values" of the modulated EM field in the "Atom" objects along the "Antenna" object. In the case of quantum computers, these are "calculated values".

Dear Jaroslav Patúc

It isn’t that I don’t want to agree with your concepts/ideas (I do). I only want to prevent miscommunication because that isn’t helpful for anybody.

In QFT there is one electromagnetic field that “tessellates” the whole volume of the universe (inclusive the Higgs field). Moreover, during the last decades the general concept of QFT has changed. Particles are local excitations of the “underlying” electromagnetic field. But there is the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum thus it is more realistic to describe a particle as a local concentration of the electromagnetic field (in line with E = m c2). If there is a local accumulation of energy, the concentrated energy must originate from the energy of vacuum space around (set theory).

Physics is a strange science because logic isn’t accepted as a proof. Thus if 2 particles without rest mass move in opposite direction we don’t conclude that the electromagnetic field is a rest frame. But the CMBR dipole – the first paper about it was published in 1977 – shows the same rest frame but now in a very complicated – and expensive – way. The interpretation of the CMBR dipole in relation to the existence of the rest frame of the electromagnetic field is confirmed with the help of observations (galaxy densities and brightness in the range of radio frequencies). The June 2022 paper about it was published by Jeremy Darling.

The strange properties of the magnetic field (vacuum space) in relation to the influence of vectors was also noticed in the first half of the 20th century. Experiments showed that a particle can pass a barrier without forcing the barrier with the energy of the particle to “open the door”. It was termed “tunneling”. A couple of years ago they have measured the velocity of the tunneling particle (from the position in front of the barrier to the position behind the barrier) and it showed that the velocity exceeded the speed of light. That is reasonable because tunneling can only be some kind of a “vector jump”. But although there is an “instantaneous” influence, tunneling is not a kind of entanglement.

There is a problem with the interpretation of an EM field (generated by an antenna). Imagine a point in vacuum space. The point represents the electromagnetic field thus the point generates quanta (electric field). The number of generated quanta is determined by the size of the point (actually the “tangible” structure of the electromagnetic field). Simply because the speed of light (quanta) is a constant. Thus if the structure of the electromagnetic field has a scale size of 300.000.000 m “the point” can only generate 1 quantum during every second. If the structure of the electromagnetic field – termed “the minimal length scale” – is about 1 x 10-15 m “the point” generates about 1023 quanta during 1 second.

But the structure of the electromagnetic field represents an enormous number of “points” and all these “points” generate quanta without any delay (because Planck’s constant is the quantum of change). The result is what we have termed “quantum fluctuations” or “vacuum amplitudes”. But if we can observe the quantum fluctuations in 1 point in vacuum space we will discover that the effect of all the quanta transfer is minimal because the whole structure generate quanta. The net effect of all these fluctuations is that the average “velocity” of the propagation of 1 quantum within the structure of the electromagnetic field is about zero (if there is no other influence). Unfortunately if we emit electromagnetic waves with the help of an antenna we are dispatching energy (quanta) and there is no doubt that we can receive the energy of the individual electromagnetic waves everywhere around the antenna.

In other words, the problem is not solved if we propose the influence of non-locality, entanglement, hidden variables, etc. Our concepts about physical reality seem too limited. And the problem isn’t new at all. About 2500 years ago Aristotle described – in an abstract way – the concept of the "unmoved mover". It is about the existence of a rest frame and all the motion in relation to the rest frame that has one causation/origin. Aristotle was influenced by the idea of Parmenides that physical reality originates from an underlying structure (partly comparable with modern QFT).

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Sydney Ernest Grimm

>

QFT is the dead end of our science. It is in opposition to the needs in the solution of "Quantum Electrodynamics" (QED) and also practical electrical engineering. QFT is looking for support in "the Higgs field".

In my work:Research Proposal Coulomb interactions and EM statics

Regards

The last post that really answers to this thread question is the SS post November 10

on 5 page,.https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_a_debate_about_twins_paradox_so_bad/5

- where also the links to other SS posts in the thread, where this question is answered more in detail, are pointed.

Cheers

“…I wonder if any of the last responders are actual physicists..…”

I am not a physicists. But the twins paradox is not a matter of physics, but of elementary logic. Twenty-five years ago I was writing a paper on "time and technology". I graduated computer science when there was very few computers around, so that we studied mostly mathematics. So, I can "read formulas"; and I sad to myself, let us see what physics says about time. And so it began. I was shocked when I saw how totally anti-logical (inconsistent) nonsense "great physicist" have been sayin about time. And they continue to do so. I abandoned this hopeless case several years ago. But I was looking (now) some my old notes; and so, I asked this question. In sum, I hold (and I wrote it in earlier posts) that (1) a discourse about the "flow" of time is a nonsense, and that (2) the discourse about the relativity of time is an obviously inconsistent nonsense.

“…I wonder if any of the last responders are actual physicists..…”

Mario Radovan ,"I am not a physicists. But the twins paradox is not a matter of physics, but of elementary logic...... hold (and I wrote it in earlier posts) that (1) a discourse about the "flow" of time is a nonsense..."

I studied electrical engineering and I have practice here, so I guess I belong to a special kind of physicist. The twins paradox is "a matter of physics". Consider "entangled photons" (Nobel Prize 2022). As an observer, I place myself in the area of medium of ​​those "entangled photons", in the space where one of the twins is "teleporting". I do not observe any movement, passage of time, in this medium, that means, that the twin is not subject to any life processes, so he does not age. This cannot be said about the other twin on Earth, that subject to the flow of local time and so age.

Once, after some time, local time on Earth again, the medium of "entangled photons" reaches Earth, we will find out how old the twins are.

I agree with you: "(2) the discourse about the relativity of time is an obviously inconsistent nonsense"

Regards

Problem is that there are no paradoxes here !

it is "Relativists" who create quazi-paradoxes AND then hand it over to Relativists AND others to try and solve 'em ............

Let me repeat: "I hold ... that (1) a discourse about the "flow" of time is a nonsense, and that (2) the discourse about the relativity of time is an obviously inconsistent nonsense."

"Time" is a word, like "five" (numbers). Reality is a process; processes may evolve in various way; but time does not "flow", and numbers do not "fly". It may be that I am an ultra-idiot, but I never understood what people mean when they say "flow/passage of time". Let me repeat what I wrote in an earlier post.

In his book about time and relativity, Paul Davies speaks about the flow of time; but toward the end the book, he raises the question, to which his book does not give an answer. "Suppose you met an alien who claimed he had no idea what you meant by the flow of time"; how would you describe the flow of time to such an alien; "what would you say to convince him of its reality?" - asks Davies. A good question indeed; I am such an alien, and my answer to Davies' question runs as follows: nothing. There is nothing "convincing" that could be said about the nonexistent flow of time.

So, I am either an alien or and ultra-idiot, but I do not know what "flow of time" means. I am not trying to convince anybody to anything; I just want to make a clear distinction between: (1) physical entities, (2) mental entities, and (3) abstract entities. Time is an abstract entity; it is a matter of language by means of which we speak about physical reality; time is not a part of physical reality and it does not flow. I repeated this claim a hundred times, and I will do my best not to repeat it any more.

Mario Radovan ,"Let me repeat: "I hold ... that (1) a discourse about the "flow" of time is a nonsense, and that (2) the discourse about the relativity of time is an obviously inconsistent nonsense....Time" is a word, like "number."

I don't know how you will express the measured time courses of the signals, or the consumption of electricity that we have programmed into the devices.

Or how do you do the conversion between frequency and wavelength of an EM wave. We definitely need a definition of local time here. The relativity of time will be in a different wavelength of the same EM wave on Mars.

Jaroslav Patúc - I have never seen that anybody changed his/her position about time and accepted what somebody else was arguing. So, discourse about time is hopeless. Anyway, all I want is to make a distinction between what is physical and what is abstract (language). I do not care how you measure time on Earth or on Mars, because you never "measure time"; you always compare processes (and you call one of them "clock").

Let me repeat what I wrote earlier. It is wrong to start from the assumption that events take place "in time" and that a change "needs time" to take place. Change is an intrinsic feature of physical reality, which is a process of becoming and vanishing. Change is ontologically and epistemologically prior to time: we perceive change, not time. If there were no change, nobody would speak about time; people would have not created this concept. Time is an abstract means by which the mind describes its perception and understanding of reality as a process and change. Time does not exist beyond the human mind and language, except in the realm of abstract entities created by the human mind and language.

In sum, time is not a "matter of physics"; in fact, quantum theory, special relativity and general relativity give quite different images of time. Time is a matter of ontology and logic.

Quote :

"" I don't know how you will express the measured time courses of the signals, or the consumption of electricity that we have programmed into the devices.

Or how do you do the conversion between frequency and wavelength of an EM wave. We definitely need a definition of local time here. The relativity of time will be in a different wavelength of the same EM wave on Mars. ""

The twins' wave horizons modulate each other’s propagation plane NON_LINEARLY . What comes out cannot be very technically named superposition while it is not very far from the phenomenon we are commonly used to call superposition in physics . Under such non-linear circumstances , low energy twin waves act as the GRUND of re-localization to as much as an epsilon degree in interactivity with the higher energy wave from among the two , which acts as energy flux diffractor : I can think of is as like whipping out some "wave equation".

Many of these whipped-out planes of inter-waves are non-linear [ few remain linear ] in their interaction properties . Again to make it more familiar : some nonlinear equation show a sort of a superposition principle and this is indeed one of the special feature presented by solitons. In these cases, you add two solitons and you end up with a new soliton. The point being: plenty of waves’ interactivities are nonlinear, and do not obey the principle of superposition. Linearizing may or may not make sense depending on the situation, and there are plenty of cases where it doesn't. Solitons AND breaking waves are easy examples of things you do want to include under the term "wave", but which don't follow the principle of superposition.

Reza Sanaye

Two "Solitons" is the correct term for twins who inherit the exact same soliton at birth. In the course of various life events (note that we are not talking about time), the information in the solitons is disturbed and each twin diverges in the length of its life.

Jaroslav Patúc

The bearing of soliton orbifolds on data flux is that twin-ness on the part of boundary conditions is not exactly the same as Symmetry Breaking boundary conditions for explicit reflection coefficients . Boundary conditions that preserve only an orbifold subalgebra with respect to an involutive automorphism of the chiral data_algebra , just like twins , are indeed modular transformations of the corresponding orbifold energy flows whose manifolds had not ---in any meaningful way--- been predetermined by Topological boundary conditions. As and when we wanted to diverge twin_ness in real chiralce conditionalities , we could have started to debate the twin paradox in a meaningful way thru the means of contribution to the mass of a 5-dimensional supersymmetric soliton by adopting a set of boundary conditions which follow from the symmetries of the action and which depend only on the topology of the sector considered, and by invoking a physical principle that ought to hold generally in quantum field theories with a topological sector: for vanishing mass and other dimensionful constants, the vacuum energies in the trivial and topological sectors have to become [ next to ] equal.

A discourse about "younger" and "older" is Newtonian; you can be younger than me only if we have a common (universal) time; there should not be such a time in the theory of relativity. Some authors claim the same thing about speed; they argue that the theory of relativity is a matter of a specific geometry. I am not sure about that; but I hold that most explanations of relativists are based on Newton's paradigm; they speak as if the universal time and space were still there.

The biggest mistake of all Einstein's theories is, he thought the Universe with several hundred billions of galaxies, that each galaxy holds several billions of solar system working mechanically under Newtonian law.

It has been proven unambiguous empirical evidence that earth's gravity working under influence of Temperature, pressure, and mass, NOT Newtonian Weight.

One the other hand, he use artificial light, or electromagnetic light in vacuum, for his formula of mass-energy, instead using Sunlight with spectrum of massive frequencies, & wavelength with is not constant speed.

Again he use our manmade Am/PM time for the Universe.

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

Mario Radovan ,"I hold that most explanations of relativists are based on Newton's paradigm; they speak as if the universal time and space were still there."

An example is how we hear a sound from a nearby lightning strike, meaning in reverse order from the distance of the place of origin. I am amazed at the theories that there are universes where time flows in reverse order than in our universe.

The remnants of Newtonian paradigm are still there : intermingled with the so-called "Relativistic" model ----And people do not realize to the full what type of mistake it is to talk of , say , relativity of simultaneity !!

Reza - I need to dive more deeply into all of your Work, yet it is clear to me that we need to do whatever it takes to midwife a new, next-gen alliance of brilliantly compassionate, truly realistic scientists (& activists et al) to start initiating effective whole world-system problem-solving. I think that formally co-editing/reviewing & recommending each others papers may be a critical part of The Solution. Best...etc. ~ M

Michael Lucas Monterey

Dear Michael !

I feel EXTREMELY regretful that you and I are not writing papers , booklets , and tomes together . Realistic look at interactivity both on science and on humanities [ I have degrees in both ] necessitates prompt collaboration between you and me . You and I alone are a whole team .

Humbly

reza

Any scientific discussion involving “time” needs to be based on a scientific definition of the meaning of “time”.

“A physical quantity is defined by the series of operations and calculations of which it is the result” -A S Eddington

Accordingly ,”time” can be defined as “that which we measure with a clock”.

Rather than face the difficult question of saying exactly what is meant by “a clock”, let’s just accept that we are all familiar with such measuring devices. They can be of many kinds: spring-driven clocks, quartz clocks, cesium clocks, biological clocks, etc. Suppose you and I possess identical clocks, that are reliable and precise. They “run at the same rate” - that’s what “identical” means. Now suppose we synchronise them - we set them to give the same reading. Then we embark on separate journeys (in very fast spaceships for example) and meet again much later. The Theory of Relativity predicts that our clocks may then no longer necessarily show the same reading, and it tells us how the discrepancy can be calculated.

My clock has measured the time taken for my journey; yours has measured the time taken for your journey. “Time” for me and my clock and “time” for you and your clock are not the same thing.

Why do people get puzzled by this and call it a “paradox”? No-one is surprised and calls it a “paradox” when two cars travel between two events by different routes and find that they’ve travelled different distances!

dEAR Eric Lord

On the one hand , you wanna rely ( and you also wanna prompt others here to rely on ) what has come --in the past 2 centuries-- to be known as common sense:

Quote :

" ”time” can be defined as “that which we measure with a clock”.

Rather than face the difficult question of saying exactly what is meant by “a clock”, let’s just accept that we are all familiar with such measuring devices. "

On the other hand , you ease yourself away from this very common sense towards the end of your post where you say :

" My clock has measured the time taken for my journey; yours has measured the time taken for your journey. “Time” for me and my clock and “time” for you and your clock are not the same thing. "

Dear Eric,

Agreed

by assuming that time is the counting of clocks, clocks are twins set at the same position with same counting, if the counting at the rejoining is different, it means that the unaccelerated twin counted a different time between same events of depart and rejoin.

In a definite interval of time in Euclidean Space, one clock ticked slower than the other since one is more advanced by the other. This means that the measure of time is relative, not necessarily the simultaneity...

Assuming the narrative of the space-time, which is just a mathematical abstraction, the clocks ticked at the same rate going in different space-time worldlines which eventually determined a difference in their gauges.

Since the space-time does not exist rather than in math, while there are instruments to measure time and lengths, Phyiscal quantities, space-time can be used only as a comfortable tool to perform calculations, then everything has to be converted in Euclidean space with a time as a parameter.

So clocks in Euclidean space ran at different rates...

Reza Sanaye

Why do you take it for granted that what we call "time" is one thing, the same everywhere in all circumstances? That's not "common sense". it's an assumption. (-;

"That's not "common sense". it's an assumption." - Correct; time is an assumption: time is and abstract entity which does not exist in the physical world. Time is a matter of language, a concept.

We can assume whatever we want; but our assumptions should be at least logically consistent. They should not lead to contradiction, because what is not logically consistent says nothing. Assumptions should also be relevant and compatible with facts. I can assume that there are green cats with three tails in the neighboring galaxy. This is not a logically problematic assumption, but it is rather useless.

Stefano Quattrini

Hi Stefano (-:

There ar two plausible explanations for the discrepancy:

either

(1) the clocks have run at different rates,

or

(2) "time" for you and "time" for me are not the same thing - we each have our own "proper" times and those are what our clocks have measured.

How could one know the difference? One can't!

But I prefer (2) because of the requirement that the clocks are identical. If you opt for (1) you have to ask what has happened to them to render them unidentical? - what has inflenced them to affect their rates?

As you know, i've already argued about this with you and others on Researchgate. I'm willing to compromise by accepting "clocks running slow" as a metaphor, because so many relativists think and speak that way.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote:

"In his book about time and relativity, Paul Davies speaks about the flow of time; but toward the end the book, he raises the question, to which his book does not give an answer. "Suppose you met an alien who claimed he had no idea what you meant by the flow of time"; how would you describe the flow of time to such an alien; "what would you say to convince him of its reality?" - asks Davies. A good question indeed; I am such an alien, and my answer to Davies' question runs as follows: nothing. There is nothing "convincing" that could be said about the nonexistent flow of time.

Can somebody offer a better (different) answer to Davies' question? So that we the aliens can understand what is "flow of time"?

Respectable Mario Radovan

When time is mere "ideation" ,then the admixture intermingling of time and space under the title of "spacetime" , , , , is that , too , something in the realm of imaginary ??

Reza Sanaye - Yes; Leibniz and I think so. In The Shadow of Time, I wrote.

(") Leibniz argues that Newton's absolute time and space do actually not exist. Only the "order of succession" (of events) and the "order of situation" (of objects) can be observed and only they exist; there are no space and time beyond that. There are no (absolute) moments apart from events, says Leibniz; what people call "the flow of time" is the flow of events. If there were no events, there would be no time. (")

In sum, my position is simple and clear. Time and space are elements of language, by means of which we speak about physical reality; space and time are not physical entities. "They do not physically exist", as some love to say. (I must leave now)

Observed in Newtonian relative time and Cartesian coordinates, there are no instances of causality breaking down.

Conversely, in Einstein's special theory of relativity, ranging data errors occur in the chirp signal, which is the accumulation of the Doppler effect.

Unaccounted-for transverse Doppler effect—i.e. the redshift of light source with zero radial and non-zero tangential velocity.[13] However, this cannot explain the similar anomaly in the ranging data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

Dear Eric, Eric Lord

ok, your choice...

that is infact what I always tried to justify, and I might be on the right track.

The energy is what affects them, kinetic and potential.

The variation of the rate of clocks depends on their kinetic energy per unit of its rest energy: 1/2 v2/c2 is the rate of change of a moving clock, to a first order approximation.

Such rate of change is just the kinetic energy of the clock 1/2 mv2 , in the inertial frame where the energy is measured, divided by its rest energy E0=mc2 .

Time dilation is strictly related to energy conservation laws and mass-energy equivalence, the kinetic energy theorem has direct relation with clock-rates of the bodies involved.

It is obvious that Time that we use is not "Universal time"

Our formula with Time is not the universal time,,,

https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative

Stefano Quattrini

But Stefano - energy and momentum of a body are functions of the speed of the body relative to an inertial observer, they are not properties of the body itself. For an observer moving with the body (in this case a “clock”) its momentum is zero and its energy is constant (m0c2).

The “proper time” τ that the moving clock measures, however it moves, is at every instant the time coordinate of its "instantaneous rest-frame". From the point of view of a “stationary” observer the energy-momentum of the clock and its “proper time” both involve the factor 1/√(1−u2/c2). It seems to me that you are jumping to a wrong conclusion in thinking that this imples a causal relationship.