I really enjoyed that. I just saw your channel and I've watched a bunch of videos on the twin paradox, so I'm not going to say I had some Eureka moment, but wanted to comment to encourage you to keep making videos. I see your first videowas 2 years ago and you only have 3.5k subscribers, but your presentation and style is really good. In my opinion, this was one of the best all-round ways to cover the topic. I think you can make a valuable contribution to the 'real' physics education - as opposed to the folks that have figured out they can make a lot of money on youtube sensationalizing physics (yea, you know who I mean, probably). So anyway, hope you find inspiration to keep educating without sensationalizing.
Finally, someone who doesn't just brush acceleration aside by saying it's just coordinate transformations. Of course it is, but what people really want to know is what is actually happening during the turnaround, so having another inertial observer in the problem doesn't really help
yeah? A stay still. B passed through A, so A and B has 0 both at their clocks. C near the star(finish). C meets B, wright his clock measurement and send it to A(light travel at the speed of light and after A recieved signal from C, send him A-clock measurements. Again light travels at speed of light. C after getting 2 measurs compared two. B-clock and (A-clock minus distance for light traveling). So? No acceleration in this scenario and what will be with measurements? My answer - B will be younger
Obviously, nothing happens during the turnaround. For the traveler, the question 'What time is it on Earth?' has no physical meaning. Any answer to this question through special or general relativity will be nonsensical.
@@LinkenCV _"My answer - B will be younger"_ - That's because C is stationary wrt. A: Use D instead, who is following B at a distance and is stationary wrt. B. D meets A, write her clock measurement and send it to B, and after B received signal from D, send her B-clock measurements. D after getting 2 measurements, compares the two. No acceleration in this scenario either, and A will be younger.
Observer A stays on Earth and feels no change in acceleration. Observer B travels through spacetime at a fair clip of C and _feels themself accelerate._ And because the faster you move through space - the slower you move through time... Observer B moves more slowly through time! It isn't rocket science, just common sense. Literally.😊
Thank you for putting this video out. It is very well explained, and will hopefully clear away som of the confusion created on other channels. Great job :-)
Absolutely amazing video! But I still have a question: Does this mean that there is no way to solve the paradox using only special relativity math? Every explanation I have seen just breaks the symmetry using 'acceleration' or 'change of rest frames' but after that they do the calculation using the earth twin as the rest inertial frame. But math is also still correct when considering the traveler twin as the inertial rest frame. So I feel this relates to when we solve a second order equation and just consider, from the two results, the one which makes sense in our case, in the twin paradox there are two possible results but only one makes physical sense. So again back to the question: Is it possible to solve the twin paradox and get the true answer purely from special relativity math?
I don't understand why you are interested in flat earth science. Relativity was disproven a long time ago. For starters, Galileo dropped balls from the Tower of Pisa proving that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. The experiment was also done on the moon with a hammer and feather. When two objects of vastly different mass fall at the same rate, there is no gravitational attraction occurring. SR and GR was concocted by a plagiarist in order to extend Newton's gravitational attraction nonsense. Forget Relativity. It's junk science and doesn't pertain to reality. The truth? Space and Time are two separate reference frames. The earth spinning on its axis as it orbits the sun is acceleration in space. This is what clocks measure. From the primitive sundial all the way to the modern atomic clock. Acceleration in Time is Energy. E=mc where c is the speed of light. Speed is distance/time so E=t or Energy equals Time. For a twin to be 'younger' it would have had to have consumed less energy. Is that information provided anywhere in the paradox? If you properly review the synchronized clock experiments, you will see that clocks in motion use the same amount of energy as stationary clocks. There is no time dilation occurring as both clocks experience the same amount of time. One just experiences more space. Unless the traveling twin is in cryostasis, they are going to be the same age.
Hi, yes it is possible if you accept the absolutness of acceleration. This absolutness is basically postulated because the first postulate of special relativity only apply to inertial frames. Therefore if you formulate the twin paradox by considering absolute acceleration it is not paradox at all but every such explanation will leave you hanging with unanswered questions. To have a paradox we need to formulate it in such a way that acceleration is also relative and we only ask what the observers experience during the trip. This experience is different for these two observers and that is why one can be younger than other. In the future I want to elaborate more on issues like this.
@@lukasrafajpps one day you will grow up and realize that Santa Claus is not real. That relativity is junk science. Here are the facts. The properties of light make it an absolute reference marker in which to measure all other motion against. There is a preferred frame reference because motion is absolute. Second. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Acceleration in Space is a frame of reference and Acceleration in Time is another frame reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. The earth rotating on its axis at it orbits the sun. That's Acceleration in Space. The radiant energy coming from the sub is what accelerates objects in Time. Rising ground temperature accelerates seed germination. Light from the sun accelerates physiological maturity date. Radiant energy from the mother hen accelerates embryo development. The feed the chicken eats accelerates it to market weight. A clock is an instrument that measures motion in space. The cesium-133 atom is chilled to absolute zero in order to prevent an acceleration in time event when a force is applied. It operates at a Constant frequency to accurately measure motion in space. Biological processes are accelerated by fluctuating energy levels. During lift-off, astronaut's undergo accelerated heart rates. The cells of the body are demanding more energy and the heart is supplying them with extra energy. If the spaceship keeps accelerating, the astronauts would eventually be accelerated out of existence. This is verified with the solar sails projects. Approaching .2c the atoms of the solar sail are accelerated in temperature and eventually disintegrate. The only way to slow down time is via cryostasis. Since cryostasis is not part of the problem, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that both twins are the same age having experienced the same exact amount of time as shown by the energy usage of the synchronized clocks. What ignorant Einstein did was combine space and time into one frame of reference. That's why you have an unsolvable paradox. Want the stationary twin to be younger, reduce the amount of energy. Turn down the heat lamp accelerating embryo development. Reduce the ground temperature. Limit the amount of sunlight the plant receives. Feed the twin a lot protein diet to cause stunted growth, delayed puberty. The one thing to remember is that Force equals Acceleration. The twin undergoing the most force will be aging the most.
Great explanation. I have never been satisfied with other explanations I have gotten, but now it finally clicked after watching this. Thank you so much!
This is excellent, thank you! The dramatic tilt of the plane of simultaneity at turnaround is what I've always thought it was, and I never understood why there was so much confusion and disagreement around it. Your additional analysis using General Relativity really helps firm that up. Eugene Khutoryansky also took this approach, ruclips.net/video/bjHLboK2M1g/видео.htmlsi=NHjEhVzweyv8Jwvd
SAME ANALYSIS! during the start of the video you took no relativistic effect into account for observer A's calculation of time you should have accounted for time dilation as for observer B you considered length contraction.
I am not sure if I understang correctly but I don't see what relativistic effects should I introduce for observer A. I just chosed certain initial configuration, the distance to the star and the speed of observer B measured in the reference frame of A. I could have chosen any other initial configuration from which I would calculate the rest
@@lukasrafajpps At 2:21 when b come back his clock will show less time as in hafel meeting experiment, time dilation, the observer a will see the clock of b and the "paradox" will be seen
@@ashutoshverma5980 I purposely didn't show the clock of B in that animation to not confuse. What happens with the B clock is explained further in the video
Great stuff. In the (several) videos I have seen on RUclips claiming that there is no Twin's paradox, they all seem to do the same thing which is to introduce extra characters into the story. Basically what we might call and outbound and an inbound frame of reference. That is simply not the twin's paradox as the crux of the whole thing is about a single traveller and they cannot simply jump between frames of reference in some magical way. In short, they do not explain the twin's paradox; they change the whole problem fundamentally and it is no longer an (apparent) paradox. The issue is that there has to be an asymmetry between the twins to resolve the paradox.
What happens to how Observer B perception of Observer's A clock if after accelerating back astronaut immediately does 180 turn and accelerate to original velocity, promptly followed by accelerating back again?
When accelerating away from Earth, Earth's clock appears to run slower. When he is a long distance from Earth, and accelerated fast away, then Earth disappears completely; light from Earth can no longer reach him. That is called the Rindler horizon, and it is similar to the event horizon of a black hole.
At 2:45 you say lengths contract in the frame of B. I presume that means all lengths in the direction of motion. Since we should avoid treating one inertial frame as special we would have to say the following; It is true for A that all lengths in B's direction of motion are shorter in B's frame than in A's frame and It is true for B that all lengths in A's direction of motion are shorter in A's frame than in B's frame. If relative motion is the cause of length contraction then we are forced to make both of these statements but, of course, both statements cannot be true. The slowing down of atomic clocks in GPS, for example, has been observed but I don't see how relative motion by itself can account for it. Relative motion is inherrently symmetrical, that's what gives rise to the paradoxes being discussed.
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for the reply. If it is true for B that the distance between A and star is contracted in B's frame because A + star is moving in B's frame then, to avoid treating B's frame as special, it must be true for A + star that the distance between B and star is contracted in the A + star frame because B is moving in the A + star frame. The star is in both frames. So the distance between A and star contracts in B's frame, as you say, and the distance between B and star contracts in A's frame.
@@patrickcannell why should B frame be special? I picked such an initial configuration so that A and the star are not moving relative to each other and the distance between them is a certain number in A-frame. This is my initial configuration and from this, you have to figure out everything else.
@@lukasrafajpps I'm afraid I've explained myself as best as I can. We're going to have to agree to disagree. On a positive note I liked the way you dealt with Dialect's "no absolute acceleration". Use an accelerometer with four springs in a circle. Nice argument.
@@lukasrafajpps "The earth-star system is moving only in the frame of B and therefore it is contracted in the frame of B" . Okey, but you do not admit there cannot be symmetry using Lorentz transforms. You cannot go from A's frame to B's frame and from such B's frame go back to A's frame and have the very same A's frame. Lorentz transformations transform whole coordinate systems - you cannot say that only things moving in A's frame with B's velocity are contracted. Everything is contracted even if it is not moving in A's frame of reference. Look at the math. There are only coordinates and velocity of light and velocity of B's frame. That means that if you define lengths as such that you say objects from B's frame are contracted in A's frame and objects in B's frame are larger then also spacetime becomes enlarged in B's frame despite whole spacetime is moving in B's frame. 1. A says its spacetime is contracted comparing to B's frame. 2. B says its spacetime is contracted comparing to A's frame. You say you know how spacetime in 1. looks like. And you somehow used that knowledge to go to number 2 and use it to calculate how spacetime in B's frame looks like. And I think it is wrong.
Thank you for this video Lukas. I am happy to see you are a physicist too! . As a Physicist, I find your videos much more educational than Dialect's! A quick question that is asked very frequently in the Physics community. In real gravity, we have spacetime curvature. Accordimg to the equivalance principle, the spacetime in the accelerated frame must be also curved. ( Riemannian tensor must be non-zero) As soon as the spaceship stops accelerating, this curvature also disappears. What do you think about this argument? Is the spacetime in an accelerated spaceship in this example curved? It can not be flat. Your insight is appreciated! Thx
Well, uniform gravity field actually does not have any curvature. Curvature is something that can't be globaly transformed away by any coordinate transformation but you can transform away a uniform field just by jumping into a frame that accelerates in the same direction and strength as the field itself. Basically from rocketship to a freefall. You can't do such thing globaly with the field around spherical body.
@@lukasrafajpps Thx for the swift reply Lukas. I agree that there is no REAL spherical gravity with acceleration,however, there must be spacetime curvature in the accelerated frame as long as there is acceleraion. I refer two two things; 1. The rotating frame thought experiment which motivated Einstein to develop GR. Einstein knew that the spacetime of the rotating disc can not be euclidean. 2. Time curves ( non- reciprocal time dilation) in accelerated frame. We know that. Light bends in an accelerated frame.So space must be curved too! We know that too So,spacetime must be curved in an accelerated frame. Yes, it is not real gravity but temporary ARTIFICIAL gravity. This is how many Physicists evaluate it,but wanted your opinion too .
@@lukasrafajpps _"Well, uniform gravity field actually does not have any curvature"_ - but the gravity field equivalent to an accelerated frame is not actually uniform. It gets weaker higher up. That is just a small oversight in your otherwise excellent presentation. See Rindler coordinates.
3q，you give the best explain,not only in youtube, but all around the world. But I still have one more question: although the time difference is caused by acceleration,but the distance that the travler has traveled is still matter, isn't? by graph, if the traveler has traveled 1 L, or he has traveled 10000L, the time dilation effect of turning back is totally different. so the time difference is added up along all the trip, but only revealed by the acceleration,isn't? your calculation revealed that time difference caused by turn back =2deltavh/c^2, so the distance h is matter.
So, the difference in clocks is caused by the turn and not by the difference in straight-line velocity? If there is no turn, then there is no time dilation?
could you do a video or explanation on this scenario please. triplets. 1 triplet E stays on earth. 1 triplet R goes right at some speed close to light 1 triplet L goes left at same speed close to light. they stop and turn and come back to earth. by my understanding. the triplet on earth should be older and the other two triplets R and L the exact same younger age as each other. But here's where i get confused again. Now same exact scenario if we remove triplet E from the scene. we get left with just triplet R and L. Now triplet R and L can both argue each other is moving away and coming back, whilst they themselves are staying still. Without earth as the reference point they can argue they are stationery. So how would their ages be the same? when they meet up. Cos it seems like I've now suddenly entered into the twin paradox and 1 twin should be younger than the other. what am i missing here in my understanding.
Both twins in your last scenario experience the same acceleration. Their experiences are completely symmetric so the result is the same for both. Neither one can claim to be inertial for the whole duration.
@@zenastronomy In the original twin paradox either twin can claim that the other is "moving". But only one can claim to be inertial. Whether or not an observer is inertial is a _measurable_ fact about their experience. This has nothing to do with the other twin. In your scenario neither twin can claim to be inertial the entire time and both experience the same amount of acceleration.
@@zenastronomy The person standing still in the gravitational field can not claim to be inertial. An inertial observer in the gravitational field must fall. And the fact that the gravitational field is uniform also tells them they are accelerating, rather than in a true gravitational field of a curved spacetime. And both the twins in your scenario see such a field and only during a particular portion of their trip. Neither has a uniformly inertial trip. Neither needs to rely on earth's reference to determine this.
@@narfwhals7843the only person that can claim to not have aged less is the one in cryostasis. Everything else is ignorance of basic physics. Force equals Acceleration. The twin undergoing acceleration in space is also undergoing acceleration in time. UV radiation causes premature skin aging. The twin that stays on earth is subjected to more UV radiation than the twin in a spaceship moving away from the sun. The twin onboard the spaceship is in an accelerated environment. Acceleration equals Force. The traveling twin is subjected to additional forces that shortens their lifespan (accelerated heart rate). Clocks measure motion in space, not time. Given only a change on spatial coordinates, the only logical outcome is that both twins are exactly the same age. Given the fact that accelerated heart rates reduces one's lifespan (hummingbirds), you could logically conclude that the traveling twin is "older' since they experienced more acceleration in time forces than the stationary twin. Both twins experience the exact same amount of spatial time. One twin just experiences more space is all.
Very good work. The Spec Rel view works well if each observer has a correct view on whether he accelerated or not (that's what you'd call absolute acceleration). In that case, only one of the 2 narratives can be trusted - the one from the observer that did not accelerate. I the GR view, theres a 'gap' at the turn around of observer B. This sounds unnatural. Nature does no make jumps. The final aging is still caused by the velocity and duration of the trip. To see this, try to make a graphic of time delay (final effect on aging) vs length of path, for various imaginary twin-travels of different length. Then try the same for several twin-travels at different speeds (same length). Solving as you did with the naive SR argument. You'll conclude that the final time delay (aging) depends on both the speed and the length of travel. No acceleration needed to solve it. (of course you need acceleration to decide which of the two ref frames is trustworthy, but that's all). In your 'GR solution' with the 'unnatural gaps', the time delay seems to depend on the acceleration at the turnaround, not on the length or speed. But that's only because you turned the viewpoint to the 'equivalent gravitational field' of the turnaround accel, using GR's equiv principle. And the grav field includes the length (in h !) and the velocity (from the change in speed, equal to -2v). So I agree that both views are correct and solve the problem. But the 'GR approach': - needs jumps or gaps. - needs the equivalence principle - GR is based anyway on SR. So to me the best approach is still the simple SR one, assuming that observers can identify when they are being accelerated. Needs less assumptions and is more basic. And correctly identifies the nature and origin of the time change.
You can do the so-called "Twin Paradox" entirely with more than two inertial reference frames, and it becomes much easier to understand if you use four or more inertial reference frames. (So, quadruplets rather than twins.) Without diagrams this will be rather verbose to describe in text. I'll try to summarize the conclusions here and write up the rest of the details here (I should really just put it on a web page and refer people to it, because I've written this all out more than once in a RUclips comments.) Basically, have Alice and Bob start somewhere on the left "Earth" side of space, and Carol and Dave start on the right side of space around ten light years away. Let's say that Bob and Dave are going to be "stationary" and have a velocity of zero relative to each other, maintaining a distance of ten light years in space (and ten years in time). Alice and Carol will be in spaceships; Alice will be traveling from left to right at a constant velocity, say 0.86c with respect to Bob and Dave, and Carol travels from right to left at -0.86c with respect to Bob and Dave. (To make use of the whole 10ly distance, Carol should be starting at 10ly to the right of Dave and 20ly to the right of Bob, but it depends on where and when you want her to cross paths with Alice.) So, here's where the relativity of simultinaity kicks in... you've got to synchronize some clocks... and this is where the so-called "missing time" vanishes to. Because Bob is located ten years in the past of Dave, and Dave is located ten years in the past of Bob... Hang on, I'll continue this in a bit, I need to go do something not on RUclips
@Physics - problems and solutions Yes! Finally someone addressed the issue of the necessity of momentum exchange. I have a feeling you thought about this after your exchange with Dialect. I was getting so frustrated with Dialect's claims that you can't have an accelerometer that is absolute (because it may have been calibrated in an accelerated reference frame I believe) and I'm like dude the difference is that you cannot accelerate without exchanging momentum with something else, so your videos are *completely flawed* I tried pointing out that they had a fundamental flaw in their videos, but I don't think I ever got a response. I'm so glad you mentioned what no one else does! You *can* determine who is the one that accelerated
Lukas, you mentioned about another video about your solution on the Twin Paradox. Where can I find it? I fully agree that acceleration must be considered in the solution. Thx
Hi, I don't know which exactly you mean but I mentioned two. about the relativity of acceleration name: "Is Acceleration Relative??? Dialect is WRONG!!!" and the other was about dr Lincoln's solution which I don't quite like "Dr. Lincoln Is Wrong About The Twin Paradox (Special Relativity)"
@@lukasrafajpps Yes correct. I thought you said that you will do a seperate video on the resolution of the twin paradox.Thats why I asked,but never mind. Einstein actually provides his solution to it in his 1918 papers resolving it with GR, the equivalence principle.
Great video, and good explanation of what acceleration actually does. Just one tiny correction. In an accelerated frame, the proper acceleration higher up in the frame also gets lower, similar to a gravitational field. Or, in other words, the gravitational field that is equivalent to an accelerated frame is not uniform. That is required to keep the roof of the box a stationary distance from the floor. If they had the same proper acceleration, the roof would fly away (Bell's spaceship paradox - you might want to make video about that as well). The only difference between an accelerated frame and a gravitational field, is that the field diverges.
Hands down the best explanation for the Twin Paradox that I have seen! Thank you for addressing the acceleration aspect, which seems to be very controversial to some folks for some reason. Acceleration is a valid concept in SR!
Relativity, the cornerstone of modern physics is wrong! Once this is understood, unification between gravity and Quantum mechanics is possible. When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has now been verified by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I watched this excellent video with greatest interest, notably around the equivalence principle which further complicates the paradox. Let me explain my concern by another thought experiment. Let us imagine one supplementary condition to add to the classical setup: let us imagine that A stays on earth while B performs his trip with a constant acceleration set to 1g (of course, it must be a little higher in the earth’s vicinity to escape gravitation, but a relativistic speed will be reached after a few weeks with its time dilation effects. During nearly the entire trip, A and B can be considered, according to the equivalence principle, exactly in the same gravitational field, the only difference between A and B, will be that up and down will reverse twice by an inversion of the thrust. But aside from this particular event, nothing allows B to consider he is in a moving rocket. How then to decide who is older ? I read somewhere that Einstein himself said that relativity alone could not tell what are the consequences of the change of direction by B... If s.o. has an anwer, it is welcome....
Einstein-> nothing can travel faster than light. Okay Einstein, that makes motion absolute, not relative. Einstein-> light travels in its own frame of reference independent of the source. Okay Einstein. That makes motion absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference. You are dealing with two frames of reference. The clock's and the photon's. The clock's frame has been accelerated but not the photon's. The 'time-dilation' is strictly limited to the clock's frame of reference. Applying Newton's Laws of motion. Force decreases with distance. The photon has a greater distance to travel in a moving frame and thus exerts less force = fewer clock cycles. There is no Relativity between the clock and the observer. The clock's cesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero while the observer's are at room/body temperature. Different environment (frame) different forces. The clock's cesium-133 atom's oscillation rate is being controlled by a metered flow of energy. The cells of the observer are energized on demand. On a high g-force environment, astronaut's experience accelerated heart rates. Accelerated heart rates = shorter lifespan. The only way the traveling twin can age less is if they spend a majority of their time time in zero gravity and that only extends their lifespan by a miniscule amount. Each cigarette takes something like 1 day off your life lifespan. The Equivalence Principle is about how Acceleration creates gravity. What Einstein NEVER understood is that space and time are separate frames of reference. The observer and the clock are selected frames of reference. Clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space expressed in units of time. Just like rulers don't measure inches, the measure length expressed in units of inches. Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. Acceleration is the actionable force. Galileo's ball drop = no gravitational attraction. Newton's Laws of Motion = gravity is a Reactionary force. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The resistance of the mass to being accelerated by an outside force. The Breakthrough Starshot solar sail is resisting being accelerated in space. This resistance cause the sail's molecules to become accelerated (heat up). Acceleration in space = Acceleration on Time. Further proof? The clock in motion uses the same amount of energy as the stationary clock. The same amount. The difference in readouts is the extra distance in space the clock is measuring. Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Motion is absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference.
The twins paradox just blows my mind no matter how you try to bring the acceleration into the equation. Does anyone know whether general relativity gives a "nice" solution?
General relativity will give you explanation through equivalence principle as I did in this video. But in GR it can get even much more trickier considering not only uniform gravity fields
@lukasrafajpps Force equals Acceleration. The twins are not in the same frame of reference as the clock. The clock's caesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied. Is the observer also in cryostasis? If not, then you can't equate the forces acting upon the clock's frame of reference with the observers frame of reference. Buy thanks for proving that Einstein’s relativity is bunch of mathematical nonsense to which you are blind to its errors. Like the fundamental fact that clocks measure motion in space. That space and time are separate frames of reference.
That would indeed be insane. Luckily all explanations are just alternative interpretations that appeal to different people. The results are always the same.
The problem involves two or more entities that are present at the same two spacetime points. Typically, one remained in a single reference frame and therefore experienced the most time passing. Everything else went through multiple reference frames and threrefore passed through more space and therefore experienced less time, as total spacetime is equal for all objects. Another way to look at it is internal clocks are vibrations in spacetime that happen at the speed of light. When the object is moving, clock slows down because of the light-clock effect and round trip ensures total number of tics is less for object that passed through more space.
You can expand on this one. The plane of simultaneity has eluded me as to what it is? At 7:10, that's it. You could title the video, Plane of simultaneity explained. The plane moves forward in time. Is it two clocks, one moving, reading the same time? Thanks.
From my understanding, although Einstein proposed SR using the inertial frame, the length contraction and time dilation were not derived base on inertia, so I'm not sure if using GR to explain the paradox is the right way.
General relativity deals with curved spacetime. So, if there really was gravity throughout the universe, wouldn't the spacetime be curved? I think using the equivalence principle to resolve the twin's paradox is similar to using centrifugal force to explain why water doesn't fall from the bucket at the top, when spun vertically. Just like how we would agree that the upward acting centrifugal force is fictitious because we cannot identify a source, the uniform gravity here is also fictitious because spacetime is flat. There is nothing wrong with it, because at the end of it, physics is about creating consistent models to simulate reality. But, the problem is in calling it 'a real explanation'. I have been teaching physics for more than 10 years, and at a high school level, I refrain from introducing centrifugal forces until folks can articulate exactly how the water stays put in the bucket just by using Newton's laws in inertial frames. Otherwise, it causes all sorts of misconceptions, and they may think they know the answer without actually knowing it. I think it's similar with relativity. The twin's paradox (or any apparent paradox in relativity) arises because people only apply time dilation or, to some extent, length contraction. But, they aren't open to relativity of simultaneity. So, my two problems with this video is 1) Saying we are using general relativity. I think not. General relativity is when the space time is curved. 2) Saying the equivalence principle, and hence the clock ticking faster, is the 'cause' of the relativity of simultaneity. I think not. Relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of the postulates of special relativity. Just like time dilation or length contractions. It's just the hardest of all three to accept. Besides that, I loved the video. I'll be releasing a video on this, this week. (A version of twin's paradox with no acceleration). Pretty much on these lines :) All the best.
General Relativity does not require curved spacetime. General Relativity is the extension of the principle of relativity to all reference frames. So it is well suited to describe the scenario of accelerated observers. But it isn't _necessary_ unless spacetime is curved. And you are correct that spacetime is not curved in a uniform gravitational field. I don't think it is wrong to introduce students to non-inertial frames. There is nothing inherently more "correct" about inertial frames. They just often make the analysis easier. If you only know the answer from an inertial point of view you still don't know the whole answer. The point of view of an accelerated observer is just as real. They just can't naively use Newton's laws, because the Galilean and Special principles of Relativity don't hold for them. But why that is or how we identify the accelerated observers is the whole point Mach was making and Einstein tried to solve in GR. According to him, he failed to do that and the origin of inertia is still unclear.
@@astrosacha2967 My statement about non-inertial frames is mostly about the centrifugal force in the bucket experiment. I agree that introducing the equivalence principle to the twin paradox is superfluous, though that is what Einstein did.
Hi, you are correct stating we are using GR was kinda superfluous since I only used one principle namely the principle of equivalence which can serve as a base for other theories of gravity as well not just GR but since we are not working with curved spacetime I could mention we are using any theory that is based on this principle. I just picked GR because it is the most correct one we have. I didn't mention it was real explanation in the video I proposed two: 1) spacetime diagram and rotation of simultaneity plane and 2) equivalence principle. I think however that these two are just two sides of the same coin. In real life, to rotate your simultaneity plane you have to accelerate, there is no other way, this would physically manifest as being inside a uniform gravitational field. If not then SR would be inconsistent with GR. Arguing what is more correct isn't scientific discussion but just a matter of preference and since using equivalence principle you don't have to consider infinitely many infinitesimal changes of your coordinate system it feels much more natural especially for audience that strive for intuitive explanations rather than mathematical. Afterall even for Einstein himself this explanation was more appealing :)
I can tell you for a fact that Einstein’s relativity is junk science. Just mathematical nonsense not backed up by an actual evidence. The Hafele-Keating experiment. How can there be time-dilation when both clocks used the same amount of energy? Explain that Einstein. I'll give you the solution. Clocks are instruments that measure motion on space. The clock's atom is placed in a special environment to prevent it from being accelerated in time. Unless the observer is in cryostasis, they are subjected to forces that accelerate them in time. As a physicist you probably don't understand that means a shorter lifespan. Space and time are two separate frames of reference. Treat them as such and physics is as simple as newton's law of motion, F=ma. Water stays in the bucket because you are creating an acceleration event around the swing bucket. You are accelerating the water outwards from center of rotation. Just as the earth is accelerating the oceans outwards from center of rotation causing a tidal bulge. Daily tides are caused by the earths motion around the sun creating a clockwise and counterclockwise effect. High tide occurs the first of the year because that's when the earth encounters its greatest rate of acceleration. Kepler's Laws of Motion. Inertial and non-inertial frames of reference are about the source of acceleration. F=ma. Mass is inert without acceleration. If the mass is accelerating itself, you take a step forward waiting in line, that is an inertial frame of reference. If I push you forward, the source of your acceleration was an external event, it is a non-inertial frames of reference and you feel the force accelerating you. That force causes compression of the mass as it resists being accelerated. Otherwise known as g-force. There is no gravitational attraction. Relativity is bogus science as light is an absolute in which all motion can be measured against. Newton's law of Motion, F=ma, applies equally to all frames of reference. Including space, time, apples falling from the tree is equivalent to apples falling from cart and impacting the trailing vehicle. You need to understand your frame of reference. Newton's bucket is a mini planet earth. Which is a miniature of the earth orbiting the sun, which is a miniature of the sun orbiting the galactic center. Which may or may not be orbiting the Great Attractor. Go back to the basics. Galileo theorized that the Earth's tides are caused by the motion of the earth. It's axial rotation and it's orbit around the sun. Using Newton's and Kepler's laws of motion, you should be able to explain what causes the tides. Once you understand that, you will understand why newton's gravitational attraction was disproven with the hammer&feather drop tests. Why Einstein’s relativity is mathematical nonsense full of errors as Tesla said.
We don't need an infinite deck to see that the equivalent principle holds universally. We can put a sensor on an expanding ball whose expansion is accelerating and see all the effect's of gravity including the tidal force. Of course the ball will burst into pieces after a while. But until it do, there'll be no way to detect if our sensor is on a acceleratingly expanding ball in space or just standing on a planet, say earth.
Happy New Year!Watched your video for the second time Lukas. Just noted your comments at the end of your video which suggests you are also a bit confused on the real solution. I think it is not that difficult for us as physicists. Yes, agree, Fermilab is totally wrong The resolution of the twin paradox can only but only be explained by acceleration and referring to General Relativity, NOT to special relativity. Albert Einstein gave the solution to the twin paradox in his 1918 papers through the equivalence principle. Acceleration causes NON- RECIPROCAL time dilation and the worldline of the travelling twin is shorter showing that the travelling twin stays younger. Most Physicists agree to this solution only!
_"The resolution of the twin paradox can only but only be explained by acceleration and referring to General Relativity, NOT to special relativity"_ - it cannot be explained without taking the acceleration into account. But Rindler coordinates of an accelerated frame are easily derived from the Lorentz transformation of Special Relativity, no GR needed. And they show all the effect demonstrated in the video.
@@renedekker9806 Albert Einstein, in his 1918 papers resolves the paradox with General Relativity. ( Acceleration- Gravity) He used his own principle, the principle of equivalence to resolve it. It is available in the internet. Check Einstein's 1918 document
@@nadirceliloglu397 _"Albert Einstein, in his 1918 papers resolves the paradox with General Relativity"_ - I know. That does not mean that it cannot be resolved without it.
@@nadirceliloglu397 _"It means it can not be resolved WITHOUT A C C E L E R A T I O N!!"_ - I agree, acceleration is required to resolve the paradox (didn't I already say that?). It just does not imply that General Relativity is required. It can be done perfectly based on just the Lorentz transformation. If you do that, you get Rindler coordinates, which describe the effects just fine. Similar coordinate systems that describe acceleration were already used by Einstein, Born, Lorentz and others, before GR was published. Just because it can be done with GR, does not mean that is the only way to do it. If you ask me personally, analysing proper acceleration with GR is bit like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. It believe Einstein only did it that way to highlight the equivalence principle.
So if the twin staying at home was waiting on a gravitating body of the right mass, they'd be the same age when the traveling twin returned from the stars, because they'd be sitting at the bottom of a gravity well while their twin accelerated at turnaround?
@@lukasrafajpps I meant, since less time passes for a person on the surface of a massive body relative to a person in space, who isn't accelerating, far away from any other masses, if that body was massive enough, couldn't the twin who stays home age about the same amount as the twin who jets off at high speed who then decelerates, turns around, and returns.
@@DrDeuteron thanks. I was thinking about the earlier reply to my comment, stating that a massive body's field lets up at increasing distance from the surface. So I guess that means my feet are actually aging less than my head while I'm standing!
@@richardzeitz54 also, it's not the field, but the difference in potential energy (which is why the video makes the comment about "integrating" the uniform field-acceleration X distance x time for grav. time dilation, which is velocity-change * distance, which is also the simultaneity term in the LT). For earth, clocks run slowest in the center of core, where the gravitational field is ZERO.
What happens if instead of using their Proper Time, A and B agree to define time by a distant pulsar? Both observers would surely then see the same number of "ticks" of the pulsar clock, regardless of which direction the pulsar was.
Assume Alice and Bob, are moving at 0.6c. Then Alice abruptly decelerated to rest, while Bob continues in his motion. Which of them is younger after 10 light seconds?
@@lukasrafajpps O.k. 1) 0.6c relative to frame of reference to which alice decelerated to (stationary frame). 2) They were moving together on the same moving frame initially. This means it can be assumed that they initially had synchronized clocks which we can decide to give any value. But for easy reference, let's say it was synchronized 1light second before alice decelerated. Meaning the deceleration happened at t=1. Thanks
@@chaoticmoh7091 _"Which of them is younger after 10 light seconds?"_ - they will be moving apart after the deceleration, so they have relative speed. Therefore, they cannot directly compare their clocks anymore. This is the normal situation for two observers that have relative speed: to each of them, the other clock will appear to run slower.
The interesting aspect of this is not the outcome - it's just a consequence of special relativity. The interesting thing is that so many people think it's a paradox. The superficial analysis is "wait a minute - can't either twin regard themselves as the stationary one?" And yes - if that were true, then the only possible outcome would be that the twins wind up the same age in the end. But no - the twins do not have the same experience. One of them has to experience some major acceleration in order to turn around and come back, and the twin who accelerates will be the younger one at the end. There is no paradox here at all. It's a totally well known fact in special relativity that the way to experience the most proper time as you move between two events is to move between them inertially. Any non-inertial path will reduce the proper time you experience.
You are wrong because according to Newton’s Law of Motion, Force equals Acceleration, not deceleration. So, during the acceleration phase, when the traveling twin is experiencing additional g-forces, they are 'aging' more than the stationary twin. So what is really going on? In order to accelerate biological processes, you need energy. Energy is defined as E=mc, where mass is stored energy and c is Acceleration. Since Time is the measurement of Acceleration, E=mc becomes E=t or Energy equals Time. If we look at the twins clocks, we can see that both clocks used the same amount of energy and thus experienced the same amount of time. If we look further, we can see that the clocks atom is being chilled to absolute zero. Unless the observer is in cryostasis, they are not in the same time frame of reference. Upon return, both twins are the same 'age' as both experienced the same amount of time. As far as the effects of additional forces being placed on the human body, you will have to take into consideration different parameters than the clocks readout. SR and GR are junk science. No matter how much manipulation you do to the theories, they will never work in the real universe.
@@stewiesaidthat I don't know where you got that, but acceleration can be in any direction - deceleration in one direction is acceleration in the other direction. A force can speed you up or slow you down. The really important thing here, though, isn't the acceleration itself - it's change in velocity. When the twin reverses direction (which requires acceleration), the angle of his or her planes of simultaneity change, and that's what makes the experiment turn out right. That's why it doesn't matter if the acceleration is gradual or instantaneous - as long as you turn around, your simultaneity planes change.
@@KipIngram I don't know what you are smoking but there are only two possibilities. You are being accelerated by an outside force or are accelerating yourself. Parachutes decelerate you to the ground and yet parachutes also accelerate you in space. Which is it? You are stuck on this stupid inertial/non-inertial crap like it's a big deal. It's not. Riding on bus, the bus is accelerating you. Riding a bike, your are accelerating the bike and yourself along with it. That's why you feel gravity at your back on the bus and not on the bike. But you are still accelerating. What does constant velocity have to do with anything. It's still acceleration.
@@stewiesaidthat We're talking past each other - what you just said is more or less what I thought I said. Our use of the words "acceleration" and "deceleration" is really just us flowering up our language a little - just "acceleration" can do the whole job - deceleration is just what we call it when it's slowing us down. The simultaneity planes lie at the heart of explaining the twin "paradox." If the velocity change is instant (if you draw the world line with a sharp corner), then the traveling twin's instant of simultaneity just "jumps over" a bunch Earth time. On the way out, the traveling twin sees time passing slow on Earth, and on the way back he also sees Earth time passing slow. And yet when he gets back home MORE time has elapsed on Earth than for him. It's because of that time that got skipped over by the direction reversal. See this diagram here: www.physicsforums.com/attachments/485px-twin_paradox_minkowski_diagram-svg-png.228611/ That's the only point I'm trying to make. It's the change in velocity (the change of motion DIRECTION, from the outbound leg to the inbound leg, that really explains the "paradox." It can't be explained by just considering the perceived clock RATES during the constant velocity legs of the voyage.
@@KipIngram the key point you are missing is that Space and Time are several frames of reference. There is no 'turn around', 'changing frames', simultanaity taking place that affects the traveling twin's clock. That's were relativists get, confused, lost, ignorant l, however you want to phrases it. Clocks measure motion in Space. Period. The ticking of the clock has no influence on the twin's Time frame of reference. The clock's atom is being chilled to absolute zero and shielded from electromagnetic radiation. Is the observer in cryostasis? Wearing sun block? Protected from cosmic rays? The ONLY thing you can infer from a slower running clock is that they experienced more Space. Due to the nature of electromagnetic waves, when the target moves away from the source, there is less applied force. If the atomic clock had been engineered with its power source forward of the direction of motion, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. The clock would be running fast which aligns with the fundamental law of physics. Force equals Acceleration and Acceleration equals Force. What the two twin's SEE has nothing to do with what is currently taking place within their FOR. Light takes time to travel from point A to point B. Motion changes the distance the photon has to travel and thus the time difference between the two twins. The Twin Paradox just reveals how ignorant Einstein really was which is why the scientific community refuses to accept reality. It makes them look like fools for buying into thus relativity nonsense. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Newton's law of motion, F=ma, can be written as ma=ma. FOR 1 is Accelerating FOR 2. That creates your g-force that you feel which is the RESISTANCE of the mass to being accelerated. F=ma can also be written as ma=F. The FOR in motion creates a Force that can Accelerate another FOR. Zero gravity is just the FOR accelerating (in motion) itself. There is no Special Relativity or General Relativity. The FOR is either accelerating itself or being accelerated by another FOR. Riding on a bus, the bus is accelerating you so you feel a g-force. Get up and walk around, and you are accelerating yourself so no g-force is felt. F=ma, ma=ma, ma=F. That's the law of physics for acceleration in Space. E=mc. Mass is stored energy. And (c) is acceleration to the speed of light (radiant energy). The conversion of atomic energy to radiant energy or radioactive decay over time. E=mc^2 is the acceleration of the atoms half-life to radioactive decay. E=mc then becomes Energy equals Time. In the synchronized clock experiments, both clocks used the SAME amount of Energy and therefore experience the same amount of time. There is no time-dilation occurring simply by traveling faster in space. The simple answer is that both twins are the same age as both twins experienced the same amount of time. One just experiences more space. There are other factors at work that impact 'aging' differences but that data is not provided in this context.
Good job man! There are too many wrong "explanations" floating around, and it's good to have a correct one once in a while! May I suggest that you also check out the various videos that (wrongly imo) claim that "standard" electromagnetism is a relativistic effect due to the electron movement within a stationary wire? I think those are "ripe" for clarification as well!
Hi I have the wire and a charge video "Maxwell's equations can't explain this experiment". The problem there is that Maxwell's equations are not covariant under Galilean transformations and therefore you don't get a consistent results when you change the frame of reference. However if you use Lorentz Transformations instead, you will get consistent results
@@lukasrafajpps I was thinking about this: ruclips.net/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/видео.html and a similar one from Science Asylum claiming that SR makes magnets work. But their argument seems to rest on the movement of electrons in the wire which I think is waaaay to slow for any relativistic effect to be in play!
The moving observer would always see the stationary clock tick faster than his own for a round trip, at least on average. If anyone says otherwise, they are wrong, and that includes Heir Professor. The observer on the train would count more rotations of the wheels per unit of time than the observer at the station. The same would happen for a spaceship flying past a pulsar. Why should the stationary clock be any different?
@@lukasrafajpps The one who accelerates out of the kinetic frame of the stationary clock is the one who is moving, and he should always see the stationary clock tick faster, not slower.
@lukasrafajpps you do know that synchronized clocks measure relative motion. That force decreases with distance so the clock with the lowest readout has traveled the greater distance.
Does length contraction affect the moving objects or does it affect the distance between them too? The latter sounds strange to me. I would imagine that the observer in the rocket would see the spherical objects as oval shaped due to length contraction, but why would the space between them contract too?
well if it applied only to massive objects it would be very paradoxical. You could imagine some mass with very small density spanning from the earth to star. If you started moving this object would contract but the distance would remain the same? There would be inconsistency because the fact that the mass is long enough to connect the earth and the star in one frame but not long enough in other.
@@lukasrafajpps I guess that's the definition of length contraction. Not so much about massive objects, but rather about moving objects. Why would contraction apply to the static space between 2 moving objects?
@@Alberto-mq7gw that is not definition of length contraction. If you want to know what is length contraction really about I made a dedicated video about it "Is length contraction real? the genuine answer"
@@lukasrafajpps Regardless of your preferred definition of length contraction, the point remains regarding length contraction affecting the distance between moving objects. Let's say you have something like this: | o | o | o | o | That's 4 balls and 5 walls. A game where the balls will bounce left and right between each of the two walls they have on both sides of them, like ping pong. But they will do so at the speed of 0.87c. You are the observer, seeing them just as they are in the diagram. When the 4 of them start to move to the right to initiate this ping-pong game, what will it happen? A) The length of the balls will contract, so that they will become like ovals or egg-shaped. Otherwise, the rest will remain the same (the walls and the distance between the walls since those are not moving). So the 4 balls will just bounce from one wall to the other. B) The length of the balls will contract, so that they will become like ovals or egg-shaped. In addition, the distance between them will contract, all of them toward the centre (assuming you as the observer are observing from a point just in front of the 3rd wall, the one in the centre), and so much so that the ball 1 will cross the wall 2, while the ball 4, which also starts to move to the right, will go backwards and cross the wall 4 to its left. Or if you prefer something more related to your own example, imagine your Observer B just on top of the earth ready to start his trip to the start 10ly away (to the right, in the diagram). Then imagine an Observer C just on top of the star that is 10ly away from the earth, also ready to start his own journey to another start further away in the same direction. Then imagine that both Observer B and Observer C start their respective journeys at the same time, at the same speed. What will happen? A) Since from their respective points of view its the Earth and the star that start to move away from them to the left, they will see them as oval shaped rather than spherical. Otherwise, they will still see them in the same place, and see the other observer just on top of each, respectively. B) Observer B will see the star that is 10ly away move immediately to a point 5ly away from him, while the Earth remains in the exact same position and observer C remains in the same point 10ly away from him (since they're static relative to each other), and 5ly away from the star he was previously just on top of. And from the point of view of Observer C... well, I don't know what you would think. Let's say that the star just below him will remain in the same place, but the Earth will get to a point only 5ly behind him instead of staying 10ly behind him (even though in theory the Earth is moving AWAY from him - to the left). While he will still see Observer B 10ly behind him, but now 5ly behind the Earth and trying to catch it up before he can continue the trip to the star. Additionally, you could place that long mass with low density connecting the Earth and the star, and place a similar mass connecting the Observers B and C. The mass between the Earth and the star remains static relative to them, while the mass between the two observers also remains static relative to them (i.e, it starts moving to the right at the same time, at the same speed as the observers). I personally find that the answer B to both questions is bizarre to say the least, but it may be misrepresenting what you're trying to communicate in your video, so let me know if that's the case and you still find your solution perfectly consistent.
The infinite deck would still have a diminishing gravitational field the further you got away from the deck, while the rockets acceleration wouldn't alter as you went up away from the floor. I think it's more useful to say a uniform gravitational field does not exist in reality, but we live in a very good approximation of one.
No, if the deck is truly infinite the gravity field is uniform. This is a standard test example in electromagnetism where instead of gravity you have charged infinite dect and you calculate the electric field. From a point source, with each dimension you eliminate one power from the distance dependence so adding 2 dimensions you eliminate from C/r^2 to just C
_"while the rockets acceleration wouldn't alter as you went up away from the floor"_ - the rockets acceleration diminishes as you go up from the floor. If you want to know more, look into Bell's Spaceship paradox. I am not sure what a gravitational field of an infinite plane does.
I was really shocked that photons frequency goes high while traversing uniform gravitational field. I though that it stay constant because of speed of light is constsnt. Amazing. Additionally does dopler effefts could be included during turnaround?
General relativity is not needed to explain the twin paradox. You just need to consider the rotation of the reference frame of observer B so just special relativity
Two objects accelerating towards each other , a light wave moves between them in a particular direction. The object moving towards the light would say the light is blue shifted , while the object moving away would say that the light is red shifted . If this red shifting and blue shifting, was actually increasing the distance between the waves of light , then that would be a paradox . For sound wave the distance between the waves themselves don't actually change when a object moves towards them, it only appears to change, because the observer is moving into or away from the waves .
_"it only appears to change, because the observer is moving into or away from the waves"_ - the same is true for light. But whether the distance is "actually increasing" for light is not a useful question, because there is no medium that can be used as an absolute reference for distances, as there is for sound waves.
How is it that people claiming to have a Phd in physics doesnt understand that a clock is an instrument for measuring motion in space? That space and time are two separate frames of reference. That the laws of physics are equally applicable in all frsmes of reference. So when an object is accelerated in space, it is also accelerated in time. F=ma/E=mc. Acceleration in space and acceleration in time. The clock's cesium-133 atom is chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied. The observer is in a different TIME frame of reference unless they are also in cryostasis.
_"a clock is an instrument for measuring motion in space"_ - depending on what you mean with "motion in space", I would use a speed sensor or an accelerometer for that instead. I use clocks to measure time. If you use different definition than everybody else does, you are not going to be understood.
@@renedekker9806 you obviously don't have a clue what a clock is. Do rulers measure inches? Do scales measure pounds. Do thermometers measure degrees? I suggest you get an education so people can converse with you on a higher level and don't have to explain every little detail that most of us consider common knowledge.
@@stewiesaidthat _"Do rulers measure inches?"_ - rulers measure distance. _"Do scales measure pounds."_ - scales measure force. _"Do thermometers measure degrees?"_ - thermometers measure temperature. Clocks measure duration of time. I am simply pointing out that if you use your own definitions of common terms that deviate from established science, you will not be understood.
@@renedekker9806 and what is time? It's a measurement of motion. Do you think that time is a physical entity that can be measured? I'm just pointing out that if you don't treat your measurements properly, people start to believe that a unit of measure actually exists. Have you heard of the graviton? People actually think that their are gravity and time particles because they don't understand elementary physics. Once again, so you understand, clocks don't measure time. They measure motion. Time is a measurement of motion. There are no time particles fir you to measure. Going faster or slower in space doesn't change a unit of time. Just like an increase in pressure doesn't change the value of a degree. Or the length of an inch.
@@stewiesaidthat _"what is time?"_ - time is defined as that what (accurate) clocks measure. It doesn't get more difficult than that. Motion is defined as changing location over time, that is, it is related to both space and time. _"people start to believe that a unit of measure actually exists"_ - I am not "people". _"Once again, clocks don't measure time. "_ - and once again, so you understand, if you are going to use the term "time" (or "clock"; it is not clear which one you are redefining) in an alternative way, you are simply not going to be understood. Invent your own, new, terms if you are inventing new notions, and make sure you describe them carefully and meticulously.
Better explanation than the ones in other videos, but still not good enough. I guess i accept the idea that oscillation can somehow make the time tick faster, but whose time is it? Is it really just the Earth time and not the rocket time? WHY?
from the Earth observer's point of view he is not experiencing this uniform gravitational field. If we want to be presice and say he is standing on the surface of the Earth and therefore experiencing the force then this experience is not the same as for the rocket observer since the strength of such gravitational field decreases with the second power of the distance to the far away observer. Therefore YES even the clock on Earth run slower due to this field but the effect is extremally small since the gravity field of Earth decreases very fast. There is also another effect you might have in mind. Longitudal doppler effect. If the rocket observer was sending such lightpulses on Earth while accelerating towards it, the Earth observer would see that the rocketship clock is ticking faster and faster as he accelerates. While this is true this effect also occurs other way around from the ship observing the Earth clock. The longitudal doppler effects are never mentioned in the twin paradox scenario just because it is not direction independent as the time dilation is. Therefore the effect of the outgoing yourney perfectly cancel out the ingoing yourney leaving just the true time dilatation contributions play a role. If you want to know more about time dilatation and what effect has this longitudal doppler then watch my newest video :)
@@lukasrafajpps Hmm... Sounds very complicated, not sure what exactly i should ask, but since you started with some difference in experience of gravitation, my new questions that i am willing to ask are: Where that gravitation difference comes from? What exactly causes that difference? And how do we know that difference is really there?
@@eklektikTubb you simply measure the tidal forces. You can measure the gravitational pull on the ground and then 1m above the ground if you have a sensitive device then on the planet's surface it will detect less gravity higher up above ground whereas in the rocket it would detect the same everywhere
@@lukasrafajppsplanets don't have a gravitational pull. Didn't you learn anything in physics class. The most sensitive device for measuring motion in space is the atomic clock. The greater the oscillation rate, the higher the operating frequency, the shorter the wavelength, the greater the clock's precision. Two synchronized clocks, one on top of the other, will measure the different rates of acceleration in space each clock has. But that measurement has nothing to do time-dilation in the observer's time frame of reference. I'll keep this simple since biological process in animals are a little more involved. Plants are accelerated through their lifespan by radiant energy from the sun. Their lifespan is measured in growing degree units -> usable radiant energy. A plant on the floor and a plant on the ground will have the same growth rate as the received the same amount of radiant energy. Going deeper, planting seeds into the ground, soil temperature is what determines germination and emergence. Just because the observer is going faster in space doesn't necessarily mean it's going slower in time. Clocks measure motion in space. Not time. The observer is in a different time frame of reference subjected to different accelerative forces than the clock as the clock's cesium-133 atom is essentially in cryostasis. Prevented from being accelerated in time by an outside force. Space and time are two separate frames of reference. The clock on the wall is measuring that locations motion in space, nothing more.
I don't quite understand why you brought up the equivalence principle at all, to be hones. If you are only using it to show a uniform gravitational field you are still in special relativity, as that is flat spacetime. So what you're doing is show that in flat spacetime GR reduces to SR, which is a fundamental premise of GR. The description you give just shows that the math SR uses to describe accelerated frames is consistent with the equivalence principle. But you are still singling out the accelerated frame. The formula you give already assumes that you can use the math of SR with proper acceleration g to calculate the redshift. The schwarzschild formula does not depend on proper acceleration, since it is a feature of the curvature itself. What have you gained? I think this is why people remove the acceleration part from the scenario to explain the result of the paradox. You don't need acceleration or to invoke the clock hypothesis. Just calculate the pathlengths.
I had to mention it because the crux of the twin paradox is what is actually going on when you change the frame of reference and how the observer on the ship would perceive reality. Moreover, it is always nice to see the problem from different angles and this nicely shows the connection between the equivalence principle and the relativity of simultaneity which at first glance feel like two different things. The "just calculate the pathlengths" argument almost never works when you want to explain the solution to somebody.
I agree. also, if you did need GR, how would that work in physics theories that are incompatible with GR but which contain SR, such as the standard model of particle physics? it would mean quantum field theories would all contain an internal paradox, and they do not. they are consistent (well, at least ignoring the problems at high energies but that's something else). They cannot include gravity, but in a toy universe that dosn't have gravity they work perfectly well. Special relativity is all that's required and there is, of course, no paradox. As you say, and as Lukas says at the start, you just measure the proper times along the paths. Since the paths are not the same, why should it be any surpise that they have different lengths? - it's not a paradox, it's not even surprising.
@@lukasrafajpps I don't actually think that is good practice in this case. It gives the impression that SR is incapable of handling the situation and GR is necessary. That's not true, though. SR handles the situation by saying that acceleration is absolute. In GR we get that acceleration is relative to local geodesics, but that doesn't show up in your explanation. And we're still left with the postulate that inertial path's are geodesics. You can of course use the GR framework to handle the situation, calculate the Christoffel Symbols for the accelerated observer, plug them into the tangent vector integral, etc... But then you get even deeper into "just calculate the pathlengths" territory than before.
@@narfwhals7843I think it is insightful to bring up the equivalence, if only because a lot of predictions of the effects in GR are derived from the same effects in an accelerated frame. That includes the speeding up of clocks that are higher up in the frame, which is needed to explain what appears to happen during the turnaround of the spaceship.
15:07 If A sends a photo of himself and his clock 2 years after B's departure and another after 3 years, B will receive the first photo before and the second after turning around. If A continues to send a photo every year, B will recieve them (+/-) every 3.3 month. He will never see a sudden advance of A's time due to his own acceleration. He must conclude that the "time jump" he calculated did not happen in the real world. This holds for both explanations with "simultaneity change due to the switch of referential frames (SRT)" and "pseudo-gravity due to equivalence principle (GRT)".
The "usual" paradox of twins has never happened, since one of them stays in an inertial frame of reference all the time, and the other, during the whole process back and forth, also turns out to be in a non-inertial frame of reference. But according to the special principle of relativity, only inertial systems are equal, and it is clear that in this case there is no symmetry between the twins. The "real" paradox of twins has never been discussed in the scientific literature: let both twins leave the starting point (conditionally - one to the right, the other to the left, but agreed in advance on the same travel conditions) and return back to the starting position. Of course, now they are quite symmetrical: there is no difference in their age. However, both have aged! Thus, the paradox lies in the fact that it is impossible to specify in relation to which observer they now "should be" younger - the effect is real, based on their previous experience of traveling alone! But when describing natural phenomena, physics operates with quantitative relations that make sense only with respect to a certain frame of reference and coordinate system. So that's where the "paradox" is: special theory does not explicitly manipulate the concept of "global time" (as a big brother - an absolute frame of reference); and qualitative and quantitative values of this parameter are absent in relativistic formulas. "Thus, Einstein's special theory of relativity does not eliminate Newtonian absolute space; it only creates for all physics, including electrodynamics, the same position that mechanics has had since Newton's time." (Born, RT, chapter VI, paragraph 10). Indeed, SR actually eliminated only relative simultaneity, leaving the right to be simultaneous within its own frame of reference (also in GR): that is, RT eliminated one-time "quantitatively", but not qualitatively. P.S. On the invariance of the speed of light: the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging. Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical. “Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). Obviously, for an expanding universe, the opposite is true. Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the Ht* parameter shows which part of the global the time "elapsed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference. That is, an observer can measure the increase in the duration of processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
Your statement at 4min 20 about clock of A being slower to be 5.75 is incorrect, it must either be 23 years or 11.5 years as only one difference in v is being discussed here. The paradox is which is 23 or 11.5. The distance is 20 light years for both, they cannot tell which is travelling the 20 light years but if they check watches at the end and one says 5.75 years has passed and one has had 11.5 years then that infers 2 velocities, one closer to the speed of light than the other. Which is not the case in your example, there is just one v. The paradox is explained by there being two DIFFERENT inertial reference frames , in this classic example this comes about by acceleration, but that is not the real solution, one frame having a higher velocity than the others is. The one with the higher velocity always has the slower clock.
Let's suppose we have a planet from which we launch 2 spaceships with the speed of 0.6c in the opposite directions towards targets 0.6ly-s from our planet. After one year both of them arrive to their target. How far are the spaceships from each other? It can't be 1.2 ly since that would mean they were departing from each other faster than c according all clocks... Do I miss something?
In relativity, whenever you ask a question like that you have to specify a reference frame in which you want to measure the distance since the length is relative quantity
@@lukasrafajpps Any of the spaceships can be a reference frame. After a year they will be 1.2 ly-s away from each other. At 0.6c there is no significant time dialation compared to the planet and absolutely nothing compared to the other spacecraft (they move with the same speed only towards the opposite direction) Also they will have zero information about each other since they are separating with 1.2 c from each other. I have never heard a satisfying, thorough explanation to what is happening here.
@@hsvmobileac They will be 1.2ly apart but only for an observer that was left at the original position and "stationary" in the frame of each ship they won't be 1.2ly apart since you have to use relativistic velocity addition formula. In the frame of each ship, the other ship is moving away with a relative velocity of 0.882c and therefore in the frame of each ship the other ship will be only 0.882 ly apart
See , you will never get an actual experiment because, nobody has ever proved otherwise. They just don't add the velocity that always the answer. I find it funny that when we discover something too small , too larger , invisible and intangible, the explanations becomes more and more illogical . This is not always true , but it is a general pattern. When these are true we need to spend more time accounting for as many variables as reasonably possible, and sometime realizing that our technology my not be advanced enough for us to make a theory, at least not a good one. I think the JWST was a good example of this , not saying I Know the answers, but the moment we could see at a literal higher resolution, so many theories now could be wrong , that because what Im now realizing is that those theories had more assumptions than actual data , because what we had was not enough to draw any kind of conclusion about the beginning of the universe .
Of course if you just look at spacetime diagram then there is no paradox because the acceleration is treated as absolute. The paradox is there only if one starts to ask how are the experiences of each observer different. Pure special relativity doesn't give any explanation for this, you have to just set up the experiment so that we know who is inertial and who accelerates.
@@laerteoliveira7923 I have watched his videos and they are nice but again triplet paradox is not a twin paradox it is just a special case of a certain initial configuration problem fully compatible with special relativity and the resolution is simply in the fact that we know which twin changed his frame of reference and which one was inertial the whole time. There is NO paradox. Paradox is there only if you deny yourself this information and if you do that SR is not capable of dealing with this.
The twin paradox in reality has to do with the relativity of the progress of time for different observers moving at different speeds relative to each other. It doesn't matter if they never see each other again. If I see a person in space moving at close the speed of light I can say their clock is ticking slower than mine. But from their point of view I am the one rushing at close the speed of light and they will just as validly say my clock is ticking slower. There is something profoundly fundamental about special relativity that we still don't understand that leads us believe there can be such paradoxes as the twin paradox.
There is nothing paradoxical about both observers seeing each other's clocks run slowly unless they can connect that to a physical event they both share. For that they have to meet up and compare clocks. Observers in relative inertial motion to not have to agree on space or time intervals, only the combined spacetime interval will be the same.
You need to know where/when they will meet again to know who will be younger. Saying that the clock is ticking slower because of the relative speed is a mathematical trick and has no physical meaning.
That actually has its own name: the clock paradox. But there is not much paradoxial about it: they are making different measurements (specifically at different locations), so it is not surprising that their measurements disagree.
So if the traveler goes backward and forward because he forgot his keys before returning, will you keep adding those 17.4 years? It doesn't make sense.
Very good video. But? What an observer sees is different to what an observer calculates. When A looks at Clock B, what A sees is not what is happening at clock B at that time for A but what happened some time ago at Clock B. Clock B is OBSERVERED to run very slow on the outward journey, slower than the time dilation calculation, about normal speed during the acceleration, then runs rapidly during the return trip. When B looks at Clock A, what B sees must be the same relative thing except during the acceleration stage when Clock A is seen to run fast. But what if the acceleration stage of Clock B is about instantaneous, like Clock B bounces off a wall? What B sees Clock A doing is extreme. Clock A has to jump ahead years in a second as seen from B. And that makes the explaination unsatisfactory. Going into the wall, photons arriving from Clock A have to be years younger than photons arriving from Clock A when coming out from the wall even though the time difference is only one second. Plus The further away the bouncing wall is, the larger the amount Clock A has to be seen to jump in time. The position of the bouncing wall should not affect the length of the time jump. So as I say, the explaination unsatisfactory.
In relativity, we never talk about what we see but what is true. If you wanted to talk about what observers see you have to include aberration effects but these effects would cancel out on a round trip.
@@lukasrafajpps The problem here is we don't know what exactly is true. Science is based on empirical evidence which is what you see, not what you calculated. Here the calculation says years pass for A while B is accelerating. If the acceleration is near instantaneous, empirical evidence will I believe, indicate that this time elapse is impossible.
@@haroldnowak2042 _"If the acceleration is near instantaneous, empirical evidence will I believe, indicate that this time elapse is impossible"_ - The imperical evidence supports the notion that A's clock jumps forward during the turnaround. B can e.g. look at the light signals that arrive from A, and calculate at what time in his own frame those signals must have left A. That latter calculation gives different values just before and just after the turn-around, because of the changed relative speed. And that is what the conclusion is based on.
@@renedekker9806 2 photons leave A's clock 1 second apart. B receives them one just before and one just after B's turn around. Forget about the calculation, there cannot be a jump in what B sees A's clock is doing. Imperical evidence confirms this and is used in the the Sagnac effect.
@@haroldnowak2042 _"there cannot be a jump in what B sees A's clock is doing"_ - and there isn't, he does not SEE a jump (with his own eyes). But his calculations about the time (in his own frame) that photon left A are different when moving away from A versus moving towards A. It is that difference that leads to the conclusion that there must have been a jump. The jump is not about what he sees with his eyes. It is about his conclusions about what must have happened far away. I think the video explained that part well.
Relativity itself is not absolute, in the sense, to tell 'whole universe is revolving around earth' is true relative to an observer on earth, but it is absurd in reality. Similarly, among two brothers, only one can be relatively fast. How to say ? We have to consider visible universe in the background( Because we don't have a visible stationary background). Can we say whole universe is moving w.r. to a moving twin ? Of course ambiguity exists if the speed under consideration are very low like a few thousand kilometers per second. But with one twin say B moving at 0.87c( 2,61,000 km/sec), it is wrong to assume that whole universe is moving at that speed relative to B. So we can safely assume twin B undergoes time dilation. From Einstein's theory time dilation happens even without background because moving object has some origin when time measurement is started, of-course it is not noticeable by the moving observer, like in the case of speeding mu-meson from upper atmosphere.
Einstein knew enough about physics to be dangerous. The fact that people still follow him belies the intelligence of the scientific community and their lack of critical thinking skills. The laws of physics are equally applicable in all frames of reference. There is no muon time-dilation because there is no time-dilation simply by moving faster in space. Time-dilation, in biological processes, is the direct result of a decrease in energy accelerating the frame of reference. Plant seeds in cold ground and they take longer to germinate. Lower the incubation temperature for an egg and the embryo takes longer to develop. Where ia the time-dilation from an acceleration I'm space event? Does the ground temperature change simply because the earth is spinning faster? When the earth moves away from the sun, less energy from the sun reaches the ground. Is that time-dilation? How does traveling faster in space change the amount of radiant energy the mother hen puts out? Applying the clock readout, an instrument that measures motion in space, belies your ignorance of nature and of physics. The cesium-133's atom is accelerated by a constant force. A plant's acceleration rate is determined by the amount of radiant energy from the sun reaching it. Animals acceleration rate is determined by the food it eats. Acceleration in space and acceleration in time are two separate events and need to be treated as such.
I believe that both SR and GR are slightly wrong. I believe that any Electro Magnetic Emission (EME) starts from a set point in space that has absolute zero movement. I am sure that if we could measure c (speed of light in vacuum) in one direction only we would have no problems with it. If the above was the case we would have no problems calculating every body else's time accurate. I believe that the first calculation where each person looks at his own clock only is the correct way to look at it. The reason is that I have looked at Einstein's famous train light clock in two ways. An addition to the usual perpendicular to the train I have also tried to calculate with it laying down so being horizontal and I found that we had the exact same time dilation. I believe that I calculated it correctly. Then I have also thought about what is really happening and I believe that it comes from the speed of c (or information) inside an atom or even inside the smallest particle manifestation and it must be exactly the same that takes place there. If a particle is in any motion in relation to where a signal is emitted from then it must always be slower for a round trip. Take a circle. Emit a signal from any point on the circle to the opposite side and wait for it to come back. If the circle is moving it will always take longer for a round trip regardless of which way the circle is moving.
(1) +1 one for not saying "There is no paradox", when there is. There's just no contradiction. (2) +1 for not stopping at "there's no paradox because the acceleration breaks the symmetry between the twins." Duh! The paradox, as you point out, is that each twin observers the other's clock tick slower than theirs for both cruise legs of the trip, and the turnaround time t_A--> 0. (3) Regarding resorting to GR time-dilation. There's a problem. Suppose after the turn around, space twin says "no, I'm going back to the star system", reversing the turn-around...well....then Earth twin's clock has to run backwards. And no one likes that. (4) So in SR, the forward Earth clock jumps forward at turn-around, +1 for not calling that time dilation. The clock isn't even running as t_A-->0, rather, the clock needs a bias adjustment. It has nothing to do with how fast it's running, it just needs its lead/lag adjusted. That works well with (3). (5) So there is still a paradox: that at the turnaround event...in the same place, at the same time, the time on earth depends on which way the twin is traveling, and you can toggle back and forth by changing speed. Ofc, that's just The Andromeda Paradox, which is just weird, and will never not seem paradoxical (I guess seeming paradoxical _is_ paradoxical..just like ethics violations). Regarding the entire universe accelerating when you're in your rocket do so and claim to be stationary in a gravitational field: yes, the entire universe is accelerating, since ALL acceleration is just a bad choice of coordinates, and physics doesn't care about you coordinates. In the same vain: Earth is indeed stationary, and the universe revolves around is once every 23h 56h, with the Sun taking 24h, and the moon, around 25.
The andromeda paradox simply isn't a paradox. The andromeda "paradox" states that depending on your acceleration you can move the present point on Earth arbitrarily, including reversing time. Relativity does not state you cannot do that. So no contradiction and thus no paradox. The reason is that any point you are able to "set" as the present will always be within the region of spacetime you can never reach and could never have reached in the past (the spacelike region), and thus you can't influence or see it. The andromeda paradox is a philosophical question about what the "present" even means.
Congratulations! 👍 Great explanation. Intuitive, formulas and example magnitudes included. It is clear now if acceleration is needed for the explanation of the twin paradox. This last part is what other videos lack the most, even if they are trying to explain it. Now we can see the time difference due to pure acceleration (“gravity": equivalence principle) and due to the change of reference frame due to acceleration. I will say this video completely covers the twin paradox all around. For the understanding of the frames of reference geometry, I recommend the “Minute Physics” video (mentioned already in this video) and the video part 1 ruclips.net/video/1xb-z8ZyvI4/видео.htmlsi=Th_LlIB1TPAWr35x and part 2. (Part 3 if you want to do the math).
Physics cannot understand what people do not understand. There are so many videos because no one has explained it well. No one cares about the return. People think like this. When twin A sees (thinks) twin B reach the star, he is frozen, and when twin B sees him reach the start, he is frozen. Each thinks the other is younger. When they meet, when we compare the frozen bodies, which one was right? I know the key is simultaneity, but this is what you have to explain. Forget about the return, nobody cares about the return. How can you theoretically not see that nobody cares about the return, and you just explain the return. It is unbelievable.
Your explanations can be traced back to an article written by Einstein published in a newspaper more than 100 years ago - even though whyever some physicists do not agree.
The twin paradox is a mathematical contradiction, not a paradox. It indicates that Einstein's relativity and light constancy postulates are false, since no correct mathematical solutions can be deduced that are rigorous correct mathematics. In mathematics, a contradiction indicates that the assumptions used to deduce a result are false. Therefore, the twins paradox is an indication that the Einstein postulates are false, because they produce contradictory mathematical results for the two different twins.
Sabine says it is wrong to say gravity is required to explain the logical fallacy in the setup of Twin Paradox. It made more sense to me. ruclips.net/video/ZdrZf4lQTSg/видео.html
I didn't say you can't explain but it is more conveniet for me because only equivalence principle tells you what is happening on the turnaround point and you can clearly see that the relativity of simultaneity is connected to the equivalence principle. But of course, you can always calculate the time differences only using special relativity as I said in the video
You're not handling the Paradox correctly. There is no acceleration in B's timeline. The chart you have at 7:20 is explicitly A's world view. In B's world view, it is A that has the acceleration. A is the one with a bend. You can't use A's world view because it'll always be internally consistent. The paradox occurs outside of A. If you use A as the definitive view, you are thus making the absolute judgement call on who is moving which violates the relativity of motion. Cut both world views in half such that there's no need for that acceleration. Who should be experiencing time dilation? If you weren't told who was A and who was B, how could you tell which is A or B? If you were told, is there any experiment you can do that would show you were fed false info?
The acceleration of B is a physically measurable effect. You can't just cut it out and replace it with nothing, because that effect is necessary for two people who depart to meet again. You can replace it with a third orbserver and then you get the same result if you add up the times of observer B and C.
@@AshersAesera The acceleration of B is clearly shown on an accelerometer traveling with B. Their experiences are not symmetric. Only one of them can be said to have an acceleration that is consistent with turning around.
@@narfwhals7843 It is. Did you not watch the video? The entire universe attains an accelerated force towards B. B can attribute the reading of the accelerometer to the universe moving.
From B-perspective not only space between start-finish shrinked, time also. So "outside" time for him moves faster. By the way for the same amount: gamma for space and 1/gamma for time. With GR your conclusions was right but there is a different explanation. Need to do own video about it 🤔 P.S. I argued with someone in coments below that acceleration isn`t the case, speed relative to the speed of light is. Muon experiment and its half-life period.
The common explanation among physicists is that both time dilation and length contraction are the result of hyperbolic pseudo-rotation in the plane of time and direction of motion in four-dimensional Minkowski space-time. Here's something about it: ruclips.net/video/M724P4xPQf0/видео.html
Make the rocket twin go to the exact speed of light and the paradox is solved ! The speed of light is an absolute so that both of them would not have the "same experience" and the symetry due to relativity would be broken.
Gravity communicate at the speed of light, so what happens to the frequency of light when a Lazer is pointed directly up or directly down , how does gravity change the frequency of something it can even reach. That is the same as a object accelerateing because no communication needs to happen , because the change in light wavelength is a appearance it's no actually happening. The light source would have to be parallel with the earth or be at some angle that is not 90 degrees. Since simplicity matters more than logic, for this example let say gravity is instantaneous, also the gravitational field is uniform. I noticed that many people view light is one giant object , yet it is made of individual waves , each wave would be "accelerated" by the same amount so how would the wavelength change if they never move further or closer other . The wavelength would only change in a non uniform gravitational field , which moving towards the earth would increase the wavelength, and moving away would decrease the wavelength.
I think that the time dilatiom that happens in a gravity field and would make the ships clock slower is not equivalent to accelerating a ship to a standstill and then back to negative velocity. The case of a clock movong slow at speed ia necause it jas to go through more space in a certain time. The reason a clock clock in gravity is slow is a similar.raason that the space is expanded an amount and the clock again has to cover more space in a certain time. Neither is true for a ship accelerating. Also the aberration of the stars tells people on the ahip they are not stationary. The time dilation from gravity is equal to the time dilation of a body moving at the escape velocity.
The good question is that if the observer A was standing on the planet experiencing acceleration why it doesn't speed up the clock of the ship observer? It is because his gravity field decreases with the second power of the distance from the center. It means that the gravity field at the position of the ship is very small.
"Also the aberration of the stars tells people on the ahip they are not stationary." - surely this is only the case if you assume the stars are stationary. The aberration would also happen if the observers were stationary and the stars were moving at sufficient velocity relative to them.
@@Raphael4722 you couldn't tell, since the stars emit light in a sphere, the aberration of their light wouldn't change their apparent position. You'd just see a different side of them.
@@lukasrafajpps the deeper you are in gravity the slower the clock, it does make sense that the ships clock would run even slower if acceleration made their clock even slower that the earth clock speeds up relatively, your proposing they decelerate very slowly, which doesn't help cover the 15 some missing years as quickly would help find those years...?
So spaceship B travels 20LY, but as fuel consumption is a function of time it only requires 11.5LY worth..... riiiiiight... lost in space. *Even the basis for clock mechanisms being distorted, really is just about differences between 2 clocks. As an example lets say 1 clock. A planet orbiting a sun as a clock. Spaceship A and B equidistant from it, spaceship B wouldn't alter that time.
Hi, I propose to you that Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity. According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion. This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO. Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics. The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics. *RUclips presentation of above argument: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
I am really glad it helped you in the future I am planning to solve the twin paradox without time dilation and length contraction but just directly from the postulates and exactly compare what would observers see and what they would figure out based on these postulates. It could potentionally put more light on the twin paradox as well :)
Майкельсона Морли 1881 - 2023 г завершенный на 50%. Вторые 50% опыта возможно выполнить с помощью некруглых катушек с оптическим волокном в 6000 м. Гибрид устройства с габаритами 25 см, возможно применить в автотранспорте, при движении прямолинейно измерять скорость 20, 25, 30 м/сек. Исходя из прямого 💯% опыта Майкельсона Морли возможно доказать постулаты: Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационные поля регулируют частоту и скоростью света в вакууме. Мне нужна помощь в совместном реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня.
Space and Time are two separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space just as rulers are instruments that measure mass. Once you understand that, you can see that both twins experience the same amount of time as shown by the fact that their clocks used the same amount of energy. Since force us required to accelerate an object in space, force is also causing an acceleration in time event. Astronauts with accelerated heart rates. Solar sails bursting into flames. The only way to slow down time is to take energy out of the system. Placing Astronauts in cryostasis for instance.
Here's another situation I found very problematic: We start a spaceship towards a target 1.2 ly-s away.We turn on the engine and speed up to 0.6c. (no measurable relativistic effects here) Then turn the engine off. Then a minute later we repeat the acceleration process. What shall we see from Earth? I think the ship will disappear from our view. The ship will be faster than light from Earth. There must be some serious logical fallacy in the Theory of Relativity. I shouldn't be able to move toward any direction in the Universe without risking that somewhere there is an object in the Universe which - after I move - will depart from me faster than light. The whole theory feels absurd and illogical.
The ship will not disappear from view. You can never accelerate an object to the speed of light. As you start the engines again, people on earth will observe that the same force does not yield the same acceleration, but less and less, due to time dilation. As the ship approaches the speed of light the observed acceleration will approach zero. The logical fallacy was in your conclusion, because you did not consider all factors, not in Special Relativity. It may feel absurd, that does not make it wrong.
SR was revealed prior to GR. Therefore, acceleration has literally nothing to do with SR. Meaning, there's something this channel's creator doesn't understand about Einsteinian Relativity. So you should learn from a real professional. Not some meep using Mathematics with an accent. Don't believe me? A simple google search of when Special vs General Relativity was published will show it.
@lukasrafajpps I didn't say that either ^. Minkowski spacetime is 4D spatial geometry of this universe. And Hermann Minkowski, the revealer of our 4D spatial universe, died in 1909. General Relativity was mathematically revealed in 1915. Meaning, an understanding of space and time existed before acceleration was even considered. Acceleration is a feature of General Relativity which describes non-euclidean spacetime geometry. Special Relativity is euclidean. I.e. no acceleration is relevant. The relationship of space and time was explained before gravity was even considered.
@@jack.d7873 "the revealer of our 4D spatial universe, died in 1909. General Relativity was mathematically revealed in 1915. Meaning, an understanding of space and time existed before acceleration was even considered." Again, I don't see a connection to this video. I said that special relativity has its limits due to the fact it only deals with the inertial observers. Twin paradox however does not work only with inertial frames - This creates a situation that is impossible to make in SR. Then I said "Maybe better answer can be found in a theory that is ABOVE special relativity" This is due to the fact that for example General relativity fully contains special relativity plus more. This video was not meant to talk strictly about special relativity but in general about twin paradox
There's no time dilation, it was just Einstein not being able to comprehend the difference between reality and illusion. If you pass by a light clock sitting on the ground and keep your eyes and head pointing straight at the scene as you pass by it, meaning not moving your eyes or head, then you might make the mistake of thinking that the photon in the light clock is taking a zig-zag path but is that the reality or merely an optical illusion? The obvious answer is it's an illusion, caused by you not keeping your eyes focused on the light clock as you traveled past it, moving your eyes or turning your head. So all you have to do to avoid being a victim of the illusion that time dilation is necessary is to always consider your own frame to be the one that's moving and never the other one, then everything will make sense, just like it did when you kept your eyes focused on the clock and broke the illusion.
This is totally wrong. You are confusing us with words like momentum and acceleration. Simply imagine 2 ships at one point in space. Both accelerate equally in opposing directions, then continue at a constant speed. One of the ships the decelerate turns around and then accelerates to a constant speed back to the starting point. The other ship does the same but a bit later. The ship that travelled the longer distance is younger. In this example we have completely eliminated the effects of force/momentum/acceleration.
You are totally wrong. Force equals Acceleration and Acceleration equals Force. Space and time are two separate frames of reference. The caesium-133 atom in the atomic clock is chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from bring accelerated in TIME when a force is applied to ACCELERATE it to an oscillation rate of 9 billion cycles per second. Are either twins in cryostasis? Prevented from being accelerated in time? Do you know that clocks are shielded from electromagnetic waves? Are the twins wearing sunscreen? Clothing that covers up thin skin and prevents UV rays from causing premature skin aging? The paradox originated from Einstein combining the frames of Space and Time and his ignorance of what a clock is measuring. C'mon man. Don't be stupid like Einstein. Think for yourself. What is wrong with this relativity crap? Why are heart rates in an accelerated state when a force is applied like when astronauts are being accelerated into space? At best, both twins are the same age. At worst, the twin that experienced more space is 'older' because they also experienced more force that accelerates them in 'time'.
@@stewiesaidthat I have eliminated acceleration from my example and still one twin is older. So it's not acceleration. The answer is who travelled the shortest (yes I said shortest) space time will be younger. Acceleration may or may not affect the space time distance depending if it's proper acceleration or coordinative acceleration. Proper acceleration is defined as lorents factor cubed multiplied by the coordinative acceleration. Lorentz factor is a function of the ratio of velocity to speed of light. But this has been eliminated from the example above. Don't be stupid like Isaac Newton (only joking 😃)
@tnig you are the one being stupid. Do you not understand what a frame of reference is? Newton's Law of Motion. What is the frame of reference? Mass or Acceleration. Those are the only two choices. Newton correctly figured out that acceleration is the frame of reference. That the apple fell from the tree because it had more acceleration in the tree than on the ground. Then he got stupid and tried to make mass the frame of reference and gave you gravitational attraction as a result. Mass as a frame of reference was disproven with the hammer&feather and feather drop tests. Newton's law of Motion, F=ma, Mass (space) is one frame of reference, and Acceleration (Time) is another frame of reference. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. The observer is not in the same TIME frame of reference as the clock's cesium-133 atom is essentially in cryostasis. Trying to use the clock's readout to determine the observers' acceleration in time is ludicrous. The click is operating on a fixed power source while the observer's power source is self-regulating. Lorentz transforms deals with the exchange of information between moving objects. It has absolutely nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference other than at the information level. In the Twin Paradox, the ages can be whatever you want them to be because they are in different frames of reference. And, as we all know, Force equals Acceleration. If you want the traveling twin to be physically younger, place them in cryostasis. If you want the stationary twin to be younger, place them in cryostasis. If your twins are plants, regulate the amount of sunlight to achieve the desired effect. Don't be ignorant like Einstein, who plagiarized everything because he didn't understand physics. Einstein didn't understand what a frame of reference is and cobbled together bogus physics to create a Spacetime fantasy universe. Don't be another Einstein.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
That must be the best video explaining twin paradox on youtube! 👍👍
Absolutely! Nothing comes even close.
I really enjoyed that. I just saw your channel and I've watched a bunch of videos on the twin paradox, so I'm not going to say I had some Eureka moment, but wanted to comment to encourage you to keep making videos.
I see your first videowas 2 years ago and you only have 3.5k subscribers, but your presentation and style is really good. In my opinion, this was one of the best all-round ways to cover the topic. I think you can make a valuable contribution to the 'real' physics education - as opposed to the folks that have figured out they can make a lot of money on youtube sensationalizing physics (yea, you know who I mean, probably).
So anyway, hope you find inspiration to keep educating without sensationalizing.
Finally, someone who doesn't just brush acceleration aside by saying it's just coordinate transformations. Of course it is, but what people really want to know is what is actually happening during the turnaround, so having another inertial observer in the problem doesn't really help
yeah? A stay still. B passed through A, so A and B has 0 both at their clocks. C near the star(finish). C meets B, wright his clock measurement and send it to A(light travel at the speed of light and after A recieved signal from C, send him A-clock measurements. Again light travels at speed of light. C after getting 2 measurs compared two. B-clock and (A-clock minus distance for light traveling). So? No acceleration in this scenario and what will be with measurements?
My answer - B will be younger
Obviously, nothing happens during the turnaround. For the traveler, the question 'What time is it on Earth?' has no physical meaning. Any answer to this question through special or general relativity will be nonsensical.
@@LinkenCV _"My answer - B will be younger"_ - That's because C is stationary wrt. A:
Use D instead, who is following B at a distance and is stationary wrt. B. D meets A, write her clock measurement and send it to B, and after B received signal from D, send her B-clock measurements. D after getting 2 measurements, compares the two. No acceleration in this scenario either, and A will be younger.
The turnaround and acceleration is a misnomer.
Observer A stays on Earth and feels no change in acceleration. Observer B travels through spacetime at a fair clip of C and _feels themself accelerate._ And because the faster you move through space - the slower you move through time... Observer B moves more slowly through time!
It isn't rocket science, just common sense. Literally.😊
Thank you for putting this video out. It is very well explained, and will hopefully clear away som of the confusion created on other channels. Great job :-)
Absolutely amazing video! But I still have a question:
Does this mean that there is no way to solve the paradox using only special relativity math? Every explanation I have seen just breaks the symmetry using 'acceleration' or 'change of rest frames' but after that they do the calculation using the earth twin as the rest inertial frame. But math is also still correct when considering the traveler twin as the inertial rest frame.
So I feel this relates to when we solve a second order equation and just consider, from the two results, the one which makes sense in our case, in the twin paradox there are two possible results but only one makes physical sense.
So again back to the question: Is it possible to solve the twin paradox and get the true answer purely from special relativity math?
I don't understand why you are interested in flat earth science.
Relativity was disproven a long time ago.
For starters, Galileo dropped balls from the Tower of Pisa proving that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. The experiment was also done on the moon with a hammer and feather. When two objects of vastly different mass fall at the same rate, there is no gravitational attraction occurring.
SR and GR was concocted by a plagiarist in order to extend Newton's gravitational attraction nonsense. Forget Relativity. It's junk science and doesn't pertain to reality.
The truth? Space and Time are two separate reference frames. The earth spinning on its axis as it orbits the sun is acceleration in space. This is what clocks measure. From the primitive sundial all the way to the modern atomic clock.
Acceleration in Time is Energy. E=mc where c is the speed of light. Speed is distance/time so E=t or Energy equals Time. For a twin to be 'younger' it would have had to have consumed less energy. Is that information provided anywhere in the paradox?
If you properly review the synchronized clock experiments, you will see that clocks in motion use the same amount of energy as stationary clocks. There is no time dilation occurring as both clocks experience the same amount of time. One just experiences more space.
Unless the traveling twin is in cryostasis, they are going to be the same age.
Hi, yes it is possible if you accept the absolutness of acceleration. This absolutness is basically postulated because the first postulate of special relativity only apply to inertial frames. Therefore if you formulate the twin paradox by considering absolute acceleration it is not paradox at all but every such explanation will leave you hanging with unanswered questions.
To have a paradox we need to formulate it in such a way that acceleration is also relative and we only ask what the observers experience during the trip. This experience is different for these two observers and that is why one can be younger than other. In the future I want to elaborate more on issues like this.
@@lukasrafajpps one day you will grow up and realize that Santa Claus is not real. That relativity is junk science.
Here are the facts. The properties of light make it an absolute reference marker in which to measure all other motion against. There is a preferred frame reference because motion is absolute.
Second. The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference. Acceleration in Space is a frame of reference and Acceleration in Time is another frame reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. The earth rotating on its axis at it orbits the sun. That's Acceleration in Space. The radiant energy coming from the sub is what accelerates objects in Time. Rising ground temperature accelerates seed germination. Light from the sun accelerates physiological maturity date. Radiant energy from the mother hen accelerates embryo development. The feed the chicken eats accelerates it to market weight.
A clock is an instrument that measures motion in space. The cesium-133 atom is chilled to absolute zero in order to prevent an acceleration in time event when a force is applied. It operates at a Constant frequency to accurately measure motion in space. Biological processes are accelerated by fluctuating energy levels. During lift-off, astronaut's undergo accelerated heart rates. The cells of the body are demanding more energy and the heart is supplying them with extra energy. If the spaceship keeps accelerating, the astronauts would eventually be accelerated out of existence. This is verified with the solar sails projects. Approaching .2c the atoms of the solar sail are accelerated in temperature and eventually disintegrate.
The only way to slow down time is via cryostasis. Since cryostasis is not part of the problem, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that both twins are the same age having experienced the same exact amount of time as shown by the energy usage of the synchronized clocks.
What ignorant Einstein did was combine space and time into one frame of reference. That's why you have an unsolvable paradox.
Want the stationary twin to be younger, reduce the amount of energy. Turn down the heat lamp accelerating embryo development. Reduce the ground temperature. Limit the amount of sunlight the plant receives. Feed the twin a lot protein diet to cause stunted growth, delayed puberty.
The one thing to remember is that Force equals Acceleration. The twin undergoing the most force will be aging the most.
I'm the first poster (in my frame of reference!)
The connection between the equivalence principle and relativistic simultaneity is very profound. I have never heard it explained like that.
Great explanation. I have never been satisfied with other explanations I have gotten, but now it finally clicked after watching this. Thank you so much!
Thanks!
Thank you very much for the support it means a lot for me :)
This is excellent, thank you! The dramatic tilt of the plane of simultaneity at turnaround is what I've always thought it was, and I never understood why there was so much confusion and disagreement around it. Your additional analysis using General Relativity really helps firm that up. Eugene Khutoryansky also took this approach, ruclips.net/video/bjHLboK2M1g/видео.htmlsi=NHjEhVzweyv8Jwvd
SAME ANALYSIS!
during the start of the video you took no relativistic effect into account for observer A's calculation of time you should have accounted for time dilation as for observer B you considered length contraction.
I am not sure if I understang correctly but I don't see what relativistic effects should I introduce for observer A. I just chosed certain initial configuration, the distance to the star and the speed of observer B measured in the reference frame of A. I could have chosen any other initial configuration from which I would calculate the rest
@@lukasrafajpps At 2:21 when b come back his clock will show less time as in hafel meeting experiment, time dilation, the observer a will see the clock of b and the "paradox" will be seen
@@ashutoshverma5980 I purposely didn't show the clock of B in that animation to not confuse. What happens with the B clock is explained further in the video
Great stuff. In the (several) videos I have seen on RUclips claiming that there is no Twin's paradox, they all seem to do the same thing which is to introduce extra characters into the story. Basically what we might call and outbound and an inbound frame of reference. That is simply not the twin's paradox as the crux of the whole thing is about a single traveller and they cannot simply jump between frames of reference in some magical way. In short, they do not explain the twin's paradox; they change the whole problem fundamentally and it is no longer an (apparent) paradox.
The issue is that there has to be an asymmetry between the twins to resolve the paradox.
What happens to how Observer B perception of Observer's A clock if after accelerating back astronaut immediately does 180 turn and accelerate to original velocity, promptly followed by accelerating back again?
the clock of A goes backward in time , due to magical gravity lol.
When accelerating away from Earth, Earth's clock appears to run slower. When he is a long distance from Earth, and accelerated fast away, then Earth disappears completely; light from Earth can no longer reach him. That is called the Rindler horizon, and it is similar to the event horizon of a black hole.
At 2:45 you say lengths contract in the frame of B. I presume that means all lengths in the direction of motion. Since we should avoid treating one inertial frame as special we would have to say the following;
It is true for A that all lengths in B's direction of motion are shorter in B's frame than in A's frame and
It is true for B that all lengths in A's direction of motion are shorter in A's frame than in B's frame.
If relative motion is the cause of length contraction then we are forced to make both of these statements but, of course, both statements cannot be true. The slowing down of atomic clocks in GPS, for example, has been observed but I don't see how relative motion by itself can account for it. Relative motion is inherrently symmetrical, that's what gives rise to the paradoxes being discussed.
The earth-star system is moving only in the frame of B and therefore it is contracted in the frame of B
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks for the reply.
If it is true for B that the distance between A and star is contracted in B's frame because A + star is moving in B's frame then, to avoid treating B's frame as special, it must be true for A + star that the distance between B and star is contracted in the A + star frame because B is moving in the A + star frame. The star is in both frames. So the distance between A and star contracts in B's frame, as you say, and the distance between B and star contracts in A's frame.
@@patrickcannell why should B frame be special? I picked such an initial configuration so that A and the star are not moving relative to each other and the distance between them is a certain number in A-frame.
This is my initial configuration and from this, you have to figure out everything else.
@@lukasrafajpps I'm afraid I've explained myself as best as I can. We're going to have to agree to disagree. On a positive note I liked the way you dealt with Dialect's "no absolute acceleration". Use an accelerometer with four springs in a circle. Nice argument.
@@lukasrafajpps "The earth-star system is moving only in the frame of B and therefore it is contracted in the frame of B" . Okey, but you do not admit there cannot be symmetry using Lorentz transforms. You cannot go from A's frame to B's frame and from such B's frame go back to A's frame and have the very same A's frame. Lorentz transformations transform whole coordinate systems - you cannot say that only things moving in A's frame with B's velocity are contracted. Everything is contracted even if it is not moving in A's frame of reference. Look at the math. There are only coordinates and velocity of light and velocity of B's frame. That means that if you define lengths as such that you say objects from B's frame are contracted in A's frame and objects in B's frame are larger then also spacetime becomes enlarged in B's frame despite whole spacetime is moving in B's frame.
1. A says its spacetime is contracted comparing to B's frame.
2. B says its spacetime is contracted comparing to A's frame.
You say you know how spacetime in 1. looks like. And you somehow used that knowledge to go to number 2 and use it to calculate how spacetime in B's frame looks like. And I think it is wrong.
Thank you for this video Lukas. I am happy to see you are a physicist too! . As a Physicist, I find your videos much more educational than Dialect's!
A quick question that is asked very frequently in the Physics community.
In real gravity, we have spacetime curvature. Accordimg to the equivalance principle, the spacetime in the accelerated frame must be also curved. ( Riemannian tensor must be non-zero)
As soon as the spaceship stops accelerating, this curvature also disappears.
What do you think about this argument?
Is the spacetime in an accelerated spaceship in this example curved?
It can not be flat.
Your insight is appreciated! Thx
Well, uniform gravity field actually does not have any curvature. Curvature is something that can't be globaly transformed away by any coordinate transformation but you can transform away a uniform field just by jumping into a frame that accelerates in the same direction and strength as the field itself. Basically from rocketship to a freefall. You can't do such thing globaly with the field around spherical body.
@@lukasrafajpps
Thx for the swift reply Lukas. I agree that there is no REAL spherical gravity with acceleration,however, there must be spacetime curvature in the accelerated frame as long as there is acceleraion.
I refer two two things;
1. The rotating frame thought experiment which motivated Einstein to develop GR. Einstein knew that the spacetime of the rotating disc can not be euclidean.
2. Time curves ( non- reciprocal time dilation) in accelerated frame. We know that. Light bends in an accelerated frame.So space must be curved too! We know that too
So,spacetime must be curved in an accelerated frame.
Yes, it is not real gravity but temporary ARTIFICIAL gravity.
This is how many Physicists evaluate it,but wanted your opinion too
.
@@lukasrafajpps _"Well, uniform gravity field actually does not have any curvature"_ - but the gravity field equivalent to an accelerated frame is not actually uniform. It gets weaker higher up. That is just a small oversight in your otherwise excellent presentation. See Rindler coordinates.
3q，you give the best explain,not only in youtube, but all around the world.
But I still have one more question: although the time difference is caused by acceleration,but the distance that the travler has traveled is still matter, isn't?
by graph, if the traveler has traveled 1 L, or he has traveled 10000L, the time dilation effect of turning back is totally different.
so the time difference is added up along all the trip, but only revealed by the acceleration,isn't?
your calculation revealed that time difference caused by turn back =2deltavh/c^2, so the distance h is matter.
So, the difference in clocks is caused by the turn and not by the difference in straight-line velocity? If there is no turn, then there is no time dilation?
could you do a video or explanation on this scenario please.
triplets.
1 triplet E stays on earth.
1 triplet R goes right at some speed close to light
1 triplet L goes left at same speed close to light.
they stop and turn and come back to earth.
by my understanding. the triplet on earth should be older and the other two triplets R and L the exact same younger age as each other.
But here's where i get confused again.
Now same exact scenario if we remove triplet E from the scene. we get left with just triplet R and L.
Now triplet R and L can both argue each other is moving away and coming back, whilst they themselves are staying still. Without earth as the reference point they can argue they are stationery.
So how would their ages be the same? when they meet up. Cos it seems like I've now suddenly entered into the twin paradox and 1 twin should be younger than the other.
what am i missing here in my understanding.
Both twins in your last scenario experience the same acceleration. Their experiences are completely symmetric so the result is the same for both.
Neither one can claim to be inertial for the whole duration.
@@narfwhals7843 if you remove the earth triplet they can. each can argue it is inertial and the other moving
@@zenastronomy In the original twin paradox either twin can claim that the other is "moving". But only one can claim to be inertial. Whether or not an observer is inertial is a _measurable_ fact about their experience.
This has nothing to do with the other twin.
In your scenario neither twin can claim to be inertial the entire time and both experience the same amount of acceleration.
@@zenastronomy The person standing still in the gravitational field can not claim to be inertial. An inertial observer in the gravitational field must fall. And the fact that the gravitational field is uniform also tells them they are accelerating, rather than in a true gravitational field of a curved spacetime.
And both the twins in your scenario see such a field and only during a particular portion of their trip. Neither has a uniformly inertial trip. Neither needs to rely on earth's reference to determine this.
@@narfwhals7843the only person that can claim to not have aged less is the one in cryostasis. Everything else is ignorance of basic physics. Force equals Acceleration. The twin undergoing acceleration in space is also undergoing acceleration in time.
UV radiation causes premature skin aging. The twin that stays on earth is subjected to more UV radiation than the twin in a spaceship moving away from the sun. The twin onboard the spaceship is in an accelerated environment. Acceleration equals Force. The traveling twin is subjected to additional forces that shortens their lifespan (accelerated heart rate).
Clocks measure motion in space, not time. Given only a change on spatial coordinates, the only logical outcome is that both twins are exactly the same age. Given the fact that accelerated heart rates reduces one's lifespan (hummingbirds), you could logically conclude that the traveling twin is "older' since they experienced more acceleration in time forces than the stationary twin.
Both twins experience the exact same amount of spatial time. One twin just experiences more space is all.
Very good work.
The Spec Rel view works well if each observer has a correct view on whether he accelerated or not (that's what you'd call absolute acceleration).
In that case, only one of the 2 narratives can be trusted - the one from the observer that did not accelerate.
I the GR view, theres a 'gap' at the turn around of observer B. This sounds unnatural. Nature does no make jumps.
The final aging is still caused by the velocity and duration of the trip. To see this, try to make a graphic of time delay (final effect on aging) vs length of path, for various imaginary twin-travels of different length.
Then try the same for several twin-travels at different speeds (same length). Solving as you did with the naive SR argument.
You'll conclude that the final time delay (aging) depends on both the speed and the length of travel. No acceleration needed to solve it. (of course you need acceleration to decide which of the two ref frames is trustworthy, but that's all).
In your 'GR solution' with the 'unnatural gaps', the time delay seems to depend on the acceleration at the turnaround, not on the length or speed. But that's only because you turned the viewpoint to the 'equivalent gravitational field' of the turnaround accel, using GR's equiv principle. And the grav field includes the length (in h !) and the velocity (from the change in speed, equal to -2v).
So I agree that both views are correct and solve the problem. But the 'GR approach':
- needs jumps or gaps.
- needs the equivalence principle
- GR is based anyway on SR.
So to me the best approach is still the simple SR one, assuming that observers can identify when they are being accelerated. Needs less assumptions and is more basic. And correctly identifies the nature and origin of the time change.
You can do the so-called "Twin Paradox" entirely with more than two inertial reference frames, and it becomes much easier to understand if you use four or more inertial reference frames. (So, quadruplets rather than twins.)
Without diagrams this will be rather verbose to describe in text. I'll try to summarize the conclusions here and write up the rest of the details here (I should really just put it on a web page and refer people to it, because I've written this all out more than once in a RUclips comments.)
Basically, have Alice and Bob start somewhere on the left "Earth" side of space, and Carol and Dave start on the right side of space around ten light years away. Let's say that Bob and Dave are going to be "stationary" and have a velocity of zero relative to each other, maintaining a distance of ten light years in space (and ten years in time). Alice and Carol will be in spaceships; Alice will be traveling from left to right at a constant velocity, say 0.86c with respect to Bob and Dave, and Carol travels from right to left at -0.86c with respect to Bob and Dave. (To make use of the whole 10ly distance, Carol should be starting at 10ly to the right of Dave and 20ly to the right of Bob, but it depends on where and when you want her to cross paths with Alice.)
So, here's where the relativity of simultinaity kicks in... you've got to synchronize some clocks... and this is where the so-called "missing time" vanishes to. Because Bob is located ten years in the past of Dave, and Dave is located ten years in the past of Bob...
Hang on, I'll continue this in a bit, I need to go do something not on RUclips
lol
@Physics - problems and solutions Yes! Finally someone addressed the issue of the necessity of momentum exchange. I have a feeling you thought about this after your exchange with Dialect.
I was getting so frustrated with Dialect's claims that you can't have an accelerometer that is absolute (because it may have been calibrated in an accelerated reference frame I believe) and I'm like dude the difference is that you cannot accelerate without exchanging momentum with something else, so your videos are *completely flawed*
I tried pointing out that they had a fundamental flaw in their videos, but I don't think I ever got a response. I'm so glad you mentioned what no one else does! You *can* determine who is the one that accelerated
You can also use an accelerometer to determine that. Dialect's claim that they cannot be calibrated is just silly.
Lukas, you mentioned about another video about your solution on the Twin Paradox. Where can I find it?
I fully agree that acceleration must be considered in the solution. Thx
Hi, I don't know which exactly you mean but I mentioned two. about the relativity of acceleration name: "Is Acceleration Relative??? Dialect is WRONG!!!" and the other was about dr Lincoln's solution which I don't quite like "Dr. Lincoln Is Wrong About The Twin Paradox (Special Relativity)"
@@lukasrafajpps Yes correct. I thought you said that you will do a seperate video on the resolution of the twin paradox.Thats why I asked,but never mind.
Einstein actually provides his solution to it in his 1918 papers resolving it with GR, the equivalence principle.
Wonderful,plz also tell us about ladder paradox,which confuses me alot
I have a video about it :) The Barn paradox
Great video, and good explanation of what acceleration actually does.
Just one tiny correction. In an accelerated frame, the proper acceleration higher up in the frame also gets lower, similar to a gravitational field. Or, in other words, the gravitational field that is equivalent to an accelerated frame is not uniform. That is required to keep the roof of the box a stationary distance from the floor. If they had the same proper acceleration, the roof would fly away (Bell's spaceship paradox - you might want to make video about that as well).
The only difference between an accelerated frame and a gravitational field, is that the field diverges.
Hands down the best explanation for the Twin Paradox that I have seen! Thank you for addressing the acceleration aspect, which seems to be very controversial to some folks for some reason. Acceleration is a valid concept in SR!
I'm afraid it is not
Relativity, the cornerstone of modern physics is wrong! Once this is understood, unification between gravity and Quantum mechanics is possible. When are scientists going to wake up and look at the experiments and theory that prove that the speed of light is not a constant speed as once thought, which has now been verified by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the Galilean Transform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
I watched this excellent video with greatest interest, notably around the equivalence principle which further complicates the paradox. Let me explain my concern by another thought experiment.
Let us imagine one supplementary condition to add to the classical setup: let us imagine that A stays on earth while B performs his trip with a constant acceleration set to 1g (of course, it must be a little higher in the earth’s vicinity to escape gravitation, but a relativistic speed will be reached after a few weeks with its time dilation effects.
During nearly the entire trip, A and B can be considered, according to the equivalence principle, exactly in the same gravitational field, the only difference between A and B, will be that up and down will reverse twice by an inversion of the thrust. But aside from this particular event, nothing allows B to consider he is in a moving rocket. How then to decide who is older ? I read somewhere that Einstein himself said that relativity alone could not tell what are the consequences of the change of direction by B...
If s.o. has an anwer, it is welcome....
Einstein-> nothing can travel faster than light. Okay Einstein, that makes motion absolute, not relative.
Einstein-> light travels in its own frame of reference independent of the source. Okay Einstein. That makes motion absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference.
You are dealing with two frames of reference. The clock's and the photon's. The clock's frame has been accelerated but not the photon's. The 'time-dilation' is strictly limited to the clock's frame of reference. Applying Newton's Laws of motion. Force decreases with distance. The photon has a greater distance to travel in a moving frame and thus exerts less force = fewer clock cycles.
There is no Relativity between the clock and the observer. The clock's cesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero while the observer's are at room/body temperature. Different environment (frame) different forces.
The clock's cesium-133 atom's oscillation rate is being controlled by a metered flow of energy. The cells of the observer are energized on demand. On a high g-force environment, astronaut's experience accelerated heart rates. Accelerated heart rates = shorter lifespan. The only way the traveling twin can age less is if they spend a majority of their time time in zero gravity and that only extends their lifespan by a miniscule amount. Each cigarette takes something like 1 day off your life lifespan.
The Equivalence Principle is about how Acceleration creates gravity. What Einstein NEVER understood is that space and time are separate frames of reference. The observer and the clock are selected frames of reference. Clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space expressed in units of time. Just like rulers don't measure inches, the measure length expressed in units of inches.
Gravity is not a fundamental force of nature. Acceleration is the actionable force. Galileo's ball drop = no gravitational attraction. Newton's Laws of Motion = gravity is a Reactionary force. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The resistance of the mass to being accelerated by an outside force. The Breakthrough Starshot solar sail is resisting being accelerated in space. This resistance cause the sail's molecules to become accelerated (heat up). Acceleration in space = Acceleration on Time.
Further proof? The clock in motion uses the same amount of energy as the stationary clock. The same amount. The difference in readouts is the extra distance in space the clock is measuring. Space and Time are separate frames of reference.
Motion is absolute (bounded) to the frame of reference.
The twins paradox just blows my mind no matter how you try to bring the acceleration into the equation. Does anyone know whether general relativity gives a "nice" solution?
General relativity will give you explanation through equivalence principle as I did in this video. But in GR it can get even much more trickier considering not only uniform gravity fields
@@lukasrafajpps Thanks! Great video.
@lukasrafajpps Force equals Acceleration. The twins are not in the same frame of reference as the clock. The clock's caesium-133 atom is being chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied.
Is the observer also in cryostasis? If not, then you can't equate the forces acting upon the clock's frame of reference with the observers frame of reference.
Buy thanks for proving that Einstein’s relativity is bunch of mathematical nonsense to which you are blind to its errors. Like the fundamental fact that clocks measure motion in space. That space and time are separate frames of reference.
it's absolutely insane that there's no universally agreed resolution.
That would indeed be insane. Luckily all explanations are just alternative interpretations that appeal to different people. The results are always the same.
There is.
One travels at a v more than the other.
The problem involves two or more entities that are present at the same two spacetime points. Typically, one remained in a single reference frame and therefore experienced the most time passing. Everything else went through multiple reference frames and threrefore passed through more space and therefore experienced less time, as total spacetime is equal for all objects. Another way to look at it is internal clocks are vibrations in spacetime that happen at the speed of light. When the object is moving, clock slows down because of the light-clock effect and round trip ensures total number of tics is less for object that passed through more space.
You can expand on this one. The plane of simultaneity has eluded me as to what it is? At 7:10, that's it. You could title the video, Plane of simultaneity explained. The plane moves forward in time. Is it two clocks, one moving, reading the same time? Thanks.
From my understanding, although Einstein proposed SR using the inertial frame, the length contraction and time dilation were not derived base on inertia, so I'm not sure if using GR to explain the paradox is the right way.
General relativity deals with curved spacetime. So, if there really was gravity throughout the universe, wouldn't the spacetime be curved?
I think using the equivalence principle to resolve the twin's paradox is similar to using centrifugal force to explain why water doesn't fall from the bucket at the top, when spun vertically. Just like how we would agree that the upward acting centrifugal force is fictitious because we cannot identify a source, the uniform gravity here is also fictitious because spacetime is flat.
There is nothing wrong with it, because at the end of it, physics is about creating consistent models to simulate reality. But, the problem is in calling it 'a real explanation'.
I have been teaching physics for more than 10 years, and at a high school level, I refrain from introducing centrifugal forces until folks can articulate exactly how the water stays put in the bucket just by using Newton's laws in inertial frames. Otherwise, it causes all sorts of misconceptions, and they may think they know the answer without actually knowing it.
I think it's similar with relativity. The twin's paradox (or any apparent paradox in relativity) arises because people only apply time dilation or, to some extent, length contraction. But, they aren't open to relativity of simultaneity.
So, my two problems with this video is
1) Saying we are using general relativity. I think not. General relativity is when the space time is curved.
2) Saying the equivalence principle, and hence the clock ticking faster, is the 'cause' of the relativity of simultaneity. I think not. Relativity of simultaneity is a direct consequence of the postulates of special relativity. Just like time dilation or length contractions. It's just the hardest of all three to accept.
Besides that, I loved the video. I'll be releasing a video on this, this week. (A version of twin's paradox with no acceleration). Pretty much on these lines :) All the best.
General Relativity does not require curved spacetime.
General Relativity is the extension of the principle of relativity to all reference frames. So it is well suited to describe the scenario of accelerated observers.
But it isn't _necessary_ unless spacetime is curved.
And you are correct that spacetime is not curved in a uniform gravitational field.
I don't think it is wrong to introduce students to non-inertial frames. There is nothing inherently more "correct" about inertial frames. They just often make the analysis easier.
If you only know the answer from an inertial point of view you still don't know the whole answer.
The point of view of an accelerated observer is just as real. They just can't naively use Newton's laws, because the Galilean and Special principles of Relativity don't hold for them.
But why that is or how we identify the accelerated observers is the whole point Mach was making and Einstein tried to solve in GR. According to him, he failed to do that and the origin of inertia is still unclear.
@@astrosacha2967 My statement about non-inertial frames is mostly about the centrifugal force in the bucket experiment.
I agree that introducing the equivalence principle to the twin paradox is superfluous, though that is what Einstein did.
Hi, you are correct stating we are using GR was kinda superfluous since I only used one principle namely the principle of equivalence which can serve as a base for other theories of gravity as well not just GR but since we are not working with curved spacetime I could mention we are using any theory that is based on this principle. I just picked GR because it is the most correct one we have.
I didn't mention it was real explanation in the video I proposed two: 1) spacetime diagram and rotation of simultaneity plane and 2) equivalence principle.
I think however that these two are just two sides of the same coin. In real life, to rotate your simultaneity plane you have to accelerate, there is no other way, this would physically manifest as being inside a uniform gravitational field. If not then SR would be inconsistent with GR.
Arguing what is more correct isn't scientific discussion but just a matter of preference and since using equivalence principle you don't have to consider infinitely many infinitesimal changes of your coordinate system it feels much more natural especially for audience that strive for intuitive explanations rather than mathematical.
Afterall even for Einstein himself this explanation was more appealing :)
I can tell you for a fact that Einstein’s relativity is junk science. Just mathematical nonsense not backed up by an actual evidence.
The Hafele-Keating experiment. How can there be time-dilation when both clocks used the same amount of energy? Explain that Einstein.
I'll give you the solution. Clocks are instruments that measure motion on space. The clock's atom is placed in a special environment to prevent it from being accelerated in time. Unless the observer is in cryostasis, they are subjected to forces that accelerate them in time. As a physicist you probably don't understand that means a shorter lifespan.
Space and time are two separate frames of reference. Treat them as such and physics is as simple as newton's law of motion, F=ma. Water stays in the bucket because you are creating an acceleration event around the swing bucket. You are accelerating the water outwards from center of rotation. Just as the earth is accelerating the oceans outwards from center of rotation causing a tidal bulge.
Daily tides are caused by the earths motion around the sun creating a clockwise and counterclockwise effect. High tide occurs the first of the year because that's when the earth encounters its greatest rate of acceleration. Kepler's Laws of Motion.
Inertial and non-inertial frames of reference are about the source of acceleration. F=ma. Mass is inert without acceleration. If the mass is accelerating itself, you take a step forward waiting in line, that is an inertial frame of reference. If I push you forward, the source of your acceleration was an external event, it is a non-inertial frames of reference and you feel the force accelerating you. That force causes compression of the mass as it resists being accelerated. Otherwise known as g-force.
There is no gravitational attraction. Relativity is bogus science as light is an absolute in which all motion can be measured against.
Newton's law of Motion, F=ma, applies equally to all frames of reference. Including space, time, apples falling from the tree is equivalent to apples falling from cart and impacting the trailing vehicle. You need to understand your frame of reference. Newton's bucket is a mini planet earth. Which is a miniature of the earth orbiting the sun, which is a miniature of the sun orbiting the galactic center. Which may or may not be orbiting the Great Attractor.
Go back to the basics. Galileo theorized that the Earth's tides are caused by the motion of the earth. It's axial rotation and it's orbit around the sun. Using Newton's and Kepler's laws of motion, you should be able to explain what causes the tides.
Once you understand that, you will understand why newton's gravitational attraction was disproven with the hammer&feather drop tests. Why Einstein’s relativity is mathematical nonsense full of errors as Tesla said.
We don't need an infinite deck to see that the equivalent principle holds universally. We can put a sensor on an expanding ball whose expansion is accelerating and see all the effect's of gravity including the tidal force. Of course the ball will burst into pieces after a while. But until it do, there'll be no way to detect if our sensor is on a acceleratingly expanding ball in space or just standing on a planet, say earth.
Nice one. Didn't think about that one before.
I have one question
You are considering acceleration is absolute but why B would consider A is changing Direction
Happy New Year!Watched your video for the second time Lukas. Just noted your comments at the end of your video which suggests you are also a bit confused on the real solution. I think it is not that difficult for us as physicists. Yes, agree, Fermilab is totally wrong
The resolution of the twin paradox can only but only be explained by acceleration and referring to General Relativity, NOT to special relativity.
Albert Einstein gave the solution to the twin paradox in his 1918 papers through the equivalence principle.
Acceleration causes NON- RECIPROCAL time dilation and the worldline of the travelling twin is shorter showing that the travelling twin stays younger. Most Physicists agree to this solution only!
_"The resolution of the twin paradox can only but only be explained by acceleration and referring to General Relativity, NOT to special relativity"_ - it cannot be explained without taking the acceleration into account. But Rindler coordinates of an accelerated frame are easily derived from the Lorentz transformation of Special Relativity, no GR needed. And they show all the effect demonstrated in the video.
@@renedekker9806
Albert Einstein, in his 1918 papers resolves the paradox with General Relativity. ( Acceleration- Gravity)
He used his own principle, the principle of equivalence to resolve it.
It is available in the internet. Check Einstein's 1918 document
@@nadirceliloglu397 _"Albert Einstein, in his 1918 papers resolves the paradox with General Relativity"_ - I know. That does not mean that it cannot be resolved without it.
@@renedekker9806 It means it can not be resolved WITHOUT A C C E L E R A T I O N!! Dont you believe the Genius of the Geniuses??
@@nadirceliloglu397 _"It means it can not be resolved WITHOUT A C C E L E R A T I O N!!"_ - I agree, acceleration is required to resolve the paradox (didn't I already say that?). It just does not imply that General Relativity is required. It can be done perfectly based on just the Lorentz transformation. If you do that, you get Rindler coordinates, which describe the effects just fine. Similar coordinate systems that describe acceleration were already used by Einstein, Born, Lorentz and others, before GR was published.
Just because it can be done with GR, does not mean that is the only way to do it. If you ask me personally, analysing proper acceleration with GR is bit like killing a fly with a sledgehammer. It believe Einstein only did it that way to highlight the equivalence principle.
So if the twin staying at home was waiting on a gravitating body of the right mass, they'd be the same age when the traveling twin returned from the stars, because they'd be sitting at the bottom of a gravity well while their twin accelerated at turnaround?
No, the planetary gravitational field is not uniform and it is decreasing with the second power of radius. Therefore the experiences are not the same.
@@lukasrafajpps I meant, since less time passes for a person on the surface of a massive body relative to a person in space, who isn't accelerating, far away from any other masses, if that body was massive enough, couldn't the twin who stays home age about the same amount as the twin who jets off at high speed who then decelerates, turns around, and returns.
yes, if the planet's mass and radius satisfy GM/R = (v/c)^2 ....to 1st order.
@@DrDeuteron thanks. I was thinking about the earlier reply to my comment, stating that a massive body's field lets up at increasing distance from the surface. So I guess that means my feet are actually aging less than my head while I'm standing!
@@richardzeitz54 also, it's not the field, but the difference in potential energy (which is why the video makes the comment about "integrating" the uniform field-acceleration X distance x time for grav. time dilation, which is velocity-change * distance, which is also the simultaneity term in the LT). For earth, clocks run slowest in the center of core, where the gravitational field is ZERO.
What happens if instead of using their Proper Time, A and B agree to define time by a distant pulsar? Both observers would surely then see the same number of "ticks" of the pulsar clock, regardless of which direction the pulsar was.
Great work!
Thank you !
Assume Alice and Bob, are moving at 0.6c. Then Alice abruptly decelerated to rest, while Bob continues in his motion. Which of them is younger after 10 light seconds?
there is not enough information to solve this. 0.6c relative to what? and where did they synchronized their clocks?
@@lukasrafajpps
O.k.
1) 0.6c relative to frame of reference to which alice decelerated to (stationary frame).
2) They were moving together on the same moving frame initially. This means it can be assumed that they initially had synchronized clocks which we can decide to give any value. But for easy reference, let's say it was synchronized 1light second before alice decelerated. Meaning the deceleration happened at t=1.
Thanks
@@chaoticmoh7091 _"Which of them is younger after 10 light seconds?"_ - they will be moving apart after the deceleration, so they have relative speed. Therefore, they cannot directly compare their clocks anymore. This is the normal situation for two observers that have relative speed: to each of them, the other clock will appear to run slower.
The interesting aspect of this is not the outcome - it's just a consequence of special relativity. The interesting thing is that so many people think it's a paradox. The superficial analysis is "wait a minute - can't either twin regard themselves as the stationary one?" And yes - if that were true, then the only possible outcome would be that the twins wind up the same age in the end. But no - the twins do not have the same experience. One of them has to experience some major acceleration in order to turn around and come back, and the twin who accelerates will be the younger one at the end. There is no paradox here at all. It's a totally well known fact in special relativity that the way to experience the most proper time as you move between two events is to move between them inertially. Any non-inertial path will reduce the proper time you experience.
You are wrong because according to Newton’s Law of Motion, Force equals Acceleration, not deceleration. So, during the acceleration phase, when the traveling twin is experiencing additional g-forces, they are 'aging' more than the stationary twin.
So what is really going on? In order to accelerate biological processes, you need energy. Energy is defined as E=mc, where mass is stored energy and c is Acceleration. Since Time is the measurement of Acceleration, E=mc becomes E=t or Energy equals Time.
If we look at the twins clocks, we can see that both clocks used the same amount of energy and thus experienced the same amount of time. If we look further, we can see that the clocks atom is being chilled to absolute zero. Unless the observer is in cryostasis, they are not in the same time frame of reference. Upon return, both twins are the same 'age' as both experienced the same amount of time. As far as the effects of additional forces being placed on the human body, you will have to take into consideration different parameters than the clocks readout.
SR and GR are junk science. No matter how much manipulation you do to the theories, they will never work in the real universe.
@@stewiesaidthat I don't know where you got that, but acceleration can be in any direction - deceleration in one direction is acceleration in the other direction. A force can speed you up or slow you down.
The really important thing here, though, isn't the acceleration itself - it's change in velocity. When the twin reverses direction (which requires acceleration), the angle of his or her planes of simultaneity change, and that's what makes the experiment turn out right. That's why it doesn't matter if the acceleration is gradual or instantaneous - as long as you turn around, your simultaneity planes change.
@@KipIngram I don't know what you are smoking but there are only two possibilities. You are being accelerated by an outside force or are accelerating yourself.
Parachutes decelerate you to the ground and yet parachutes also accelerate you in space. Which is it?
You are stuck on this stupid inertial/non-inertial crap like it's a big deal. It's not. Riding on bus, the bus is accelerating you. Riding a bike, your are accelerating the bike and yourself along with it. That's why you feel gravity at your back on the bus and not on the bike. But you are still accelerating. What does constant velocity have to do with anything. It's still acceleration.
@@stewiesaidthat We're talking past each other - what you just said is more or less what I thought I said. Our use of the words "acceleration" and "deceleration" is really just us flowering up our language a little - just "acceleration" can do the whole job - deceleration is just what we call it when it's slowing us down.
The simultaneity planes lie at the heart of explaining the twin "paradox." If the velocity change is instant (if you draw the world line with a sharp corner), then the traveling twin's instant of simultaneity just "jumps over" a bunch Earth time. On the way out, the traveling twin sees time passing slow on Earth, and on the way back he also sees Earth time passing slow. And yet when he gets back home MORE time has elapsed on Earth than for him. It's because of that time that got skipped over by the direction reversal. See this diagram here:
www.physicsforums.com/attachments/485px-twin_paradox_minkowski_diagram-svg-png.228611/
That's the only point I'm trying to make. It's the change in velocity (the change of motion DIRECTION, from the outbound leg to the inbound leg, that really explains the "paradox." It can't be explained by just considering the perceived clock RATES during the constant velocity legs of the voyage.
@@KipIngram the key point you are missing is that Space and Time are several frames of reference. There is no 'turn around', 'changing frames', simultanaity taking place that affects the traveling twin's clock.
That's were relativists get, confused, lost, ignorant l, however you want to phrases it. Clocks measure motion in Space. Period. The ticking of the clock has no influence on the twin's Time frame of reference.
The clock's atom is being chilled to absolute zero and shielded from electromagnetic radiation. Is the observer in cryostasis? Wearing sun block? Protected from cosmic rays?
The ONLY thing you can infer from a slower running clock is that they experienced more Space.
Due to the nature of electromagnetic waves, when the target moves away from the source, there is less applied force. If the atomic clock had been engineered with its power source forward of the direction of motion, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. The clock would be running fast which aligns with the fundamental law of physics. Force equals Acceleration and Acceleration equals Force.
What the two twin's SEE has nothing to do with what is currently taking place within their FOR. Light takes time to travel from point A to point B. Motion changes the distance the photon has to travel and thus the time difference between the two twins.
The Twin Paradox just reveals how ignorant Einstein really was which is why the scientific community refuses to accept reality. It makes them look like fools for buying into thus relativity nonsense.
The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference.
Newton's law of motion, F=ma, can be written as ma=ma. FOR 1 is Accelerating FOR 2. That creates your g-force that you feel which is the RESISTANCE of the mass to being accelerated.
F=ma can also be written as ma=F. The FOR in motion creates a Force that can Accelerate another FOR.
Zero gravity is just the FOR accelerating (in motion) itself.
There is no Special Relativity or General Relativity. The FOR is either accelerating itself or being accelerated by another FOR.
Riding on a bus, the bus is accelerating you so you feel a g-force. Get up and walk around, and you are accelerating yourself so no g-force is felt.
F=ma, ma=ma, ma=F. That's the law of physics for acceleration in Space.
E=mc. Mass is stored energy. And (c) is acceleration to the speed of light (radiant energy). The conversion of atomic energy to radiant energy or radioactive decay over time.
E=mc^2 is the acceleration of the atoms half-life to radioactive decay.
E=mc then becomes Energy equals Time.
In the synchronized clock experiments, both clocks used the SAME amount of Energy and therefore experience the same amount of time. There is no time-dilation occurring simply by traveling faster in space.
The simple answer is that both twins are the same age as both twins experienced the same amount of time. One just experiences more space.
There are other factors at work that impact 'aging' differences but that data is not provided in this context.
Good job man! There are too many wrong "explanations" floating around, and it's good to have a correct one once in a while! May I suggest that you also check out the various videos that (wrongly imo) claim that "standard" electromagnetism is a relativistic effect due to the electron movement within a stationary wire? I think those are "ripe" for clarification as well!
Hi I have the wire and a charge video "Maxwell's equations can't explain this experiment". The problem there is that Maxwell's equations are not covariant under Galilean transformations and therefore you don't get a consistent results when you change the frame of reference.
However if you use Lorentz Transformations instead, you will get consistent results
@@lukasrafajpps I was thinking about this: ruclips.net/video/1TKSfAkWWN0/видео.html and a similar one from Science Asylum claiming that SR makes magnets work. But their argument seems to rest on the movement of electrons in the wire which I think is waaaay to slow for any relativistic effect to be in play!
only if not take into account a huge number of electrons contribution to the effect
The moving observer would always see the stationary clock tick faster than his own for a round trip, at least on average. If anyone says otherwise, they are wrong, and that includes Heir Professor. The observer on the train would count more rotations of the wheels per unit of time than the observer at the station. The same would happen for a spaceship flying past a pulsar. Why should the stationary clock be any different?
Moving observer should always see the stationary clock tick slower? but who is moving?
@@lukasrafajpps The one who accelerates out of the kinetic frame of the stationary clock is the one who is moving, and he should always see the stationary clock tick faster, not slower.
@lukasrafajpps you do know that synchronized clocks measure relative motion. That force decreases with distance so the clock with the lowest readout has traveled the greater distance.
Does length contraction affect the moving objects or does it affect the distance between them too? The latter sounds strange to me. I would imagine that the observer in the rocket would see the spherical objects as oval shaped due to length contraction, but why would the space between them contract too?
well if it applied only to massive objects it would be very paradoxical. You could imagine some mass with very small density spanning from the earth to star. If you started moving this object would contract but the distance would remain the same? There would be inconsistency because the fact that the mass is long enough to connect the earth and the star in one frame but not long enough in other.
@@lukasrafajpps I guess that's the definition of length contraction. Not so much about massive objects, but rather about moving objects. Why would contraction apply to the static space between 2 moving objects?
@@Alberto-mq7gw that is not definition of length contraction. If you want to know what is length contraction really about I made a dedicated video about it "Is length contraction real? the genuine answer"
@@lukasrafajpps Regardless of your preferred definition of length contraction, the point remains regarding length contraction affecting the distance between moving objects. Let's say you have something like this:
| o | o | o | o |
That's 4 balls and 5 walls. A game where the balls will bounce left and right between each of the two walls they have on both sides of them, like ping pong. But they will do so at the speed of 0.87c. You are the observer, seeing them just as they are in the diagram. When the 4 of them start to move to the right to initiate this ping-pong game, what will it happen?
A) The length of the balls will contract, so that they will become like ovals or egg-shaped. Otherwise, the rest will remain the same (the walls and the distance between the walls since those are not moving). So the 4 balls will just bounce from one wall to the other.
B) The length of the balls will contract, so that they will become like ovals or egg-shaped. In addition, the distance between them will contract, all of them toward the centre (assuming you as the observer are observing from a point just in front of the 3rd wall, the one in the centre), and so much so that the ball 1 will cross the wall 2, while the ball 4, which also starts to move to the right, will go backwards and cross the wall 4 to its left.
Or if you prefer something more related to your own example, imagine your Observer B just on top of the earth ready to start his trip to the start 10ly away (to the right, in the diagram). Then imagine an Observer C just on top of the star that is 10ly away from the earth, also ready to start his own journey to another start further away in the same direction. Then imagine that both Observer B and Observer C start their respective journeys at the same time, at the same speed. What will happen?
A) Since from their respective points of view its the Earth and the star that start to move away from them to the left, they will see them as oval shaped rather than spherical. Otherwise, they will still see them in the same place, and see the other observer just on top of each, respectively.
B) Observer B will see the star that is 10ly away move immediately to a point 5ly away from him, while the Earth remains in the exact same position and observer C remains in the same point 10ly away from him (since they're static relative to each other), and 5ly away from the star he was previously just on top of. And from the point of view of Observer C... well, I don't know what you would think. Let's say that the star just below him will remain in the same place, but the Earth will get to a point only 5ly behind him instead of staying 10ly behind him (even though in theory the Earth is moving AWAY from him - to the left). While he will still see Observer B 10ly behind him, but now 5ly behind the Earth and trying to catch it up before he can continue the trip to the star.
Additionally, you could place that long mass with low density connecting the Earth and the star, and place a similar mass connecting the Observers B and C. The mass between the Earth and the star remains static relative to them, while the mass between the two observers also remains static relative to them (i.e, it starts moving to the right at the same time, at the same speed as the observers).
I personally find that the answer B to both questions is bizarre to say the least, but it may be misrepresenting what you're trying to communicate in your video, so let me know if that's the case and you still find your solution perfectly consistent.
Nice job . thanks
The infinite deck would still have a diminishing gravitational field the further you got away from the deck, while the rockets acceleration wouldn't alter as you went up away from the floor. I think it's more useful to say a uniform gravitational field does not exist in reality, but we live in a very good approximation of one.
No, if the deck is truly infinite the gravity field is uniform. This is a standard test example in electromagnetism where instead of gravity you have charged infinite dect and you calculate the electric field.
From a point source, with each dimension you eliminate one power from the distance dependence so adding 2 dimensions you eliminate from C/r^2 to just C
_"while the rockets acceleration wouldn't alter as you went up away from the floor"_ - the rockets acceleration diminishes as you go up from the floor. If you want to know more, look into Bell's Spaceship paradox.
I am not sure what a gravitational field of an infinite plane does.
@@renedekker9806 hmmmm yeah that's wild eh. Thanks for pointing it out.
I was really shocked that photons frequency goes high while traversing uniform gravitational field. I though that it stay constant because of speed of light is constsnt. Amazing. Additionally does dopler effefts could be included during turnaround?
General relativity is not needed to explain the twin paradox. You just need to consider the rotation of the reference frame of observer B so just special relativity
Two objects accelerating towards each other , a light wave moves between them in a particular direction. The object moving towards the light would say the light is blue shifted , while the object moving away would say that the light is red shifted .
If this red shifting and blue shifting, was actually increasing the distance between the waves of light , then that would be a paradox .
For sound wave the distance between the waves themselves don't actually change when a object moves towards them, it only appears to change, because the observer is moving into or away from the waves .
_"it only appears to change, because the observer is moving into or away from the waves"_ - the same is true for light. But whether the distance is "actually increasing" for light is not a useful question, because there is no medium that can be used as an absolute reference for distances, as there is for sound waves.
He sounded right but I am not sure I was less confused at the end of the video than before.
How is it that people claiming to have a Phd in physics doesnt understand that a clock is an instrument for measuring motion in space?
That space and time are two separate frames of reference.
That the laws of physics are equally applicable in all frsmes of reference.
So when an object is accelerated in space, it is also accelerated in time. F=ma/E=mc. Acceleration in space and acceleration in time.
The clock's cesium-133 atom is chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied.
The observer is in a different TIME frame of reference unless they are also in cryostasis.
_"a clock is an instrument for measuring motion in space"_ - depending on what you mean with "motion in space", I would use a speed sensor or an accelerometer for that instead. I use clocks to measure time. If you use different definition than everybody else does, you are not going to be understood.
@@renedekker9806 you obviously don't have a clue what a clock is. Do rulers measure inches? Do scales measure pounds. Do thermometers measure degrees?
I suggest you get an education so people can converse with you on a higher level and don't have to explain every little detail that most of us consider common knowledge.
@@stewiesaidthat _"Do rulers measure inches?"_ - rulers measure distance.
_"Do scales measure pounds."_ - scales measure force.
_"Do thermometers measure degrees?"_ - thermometers measure temperature.
Clocks measure duration of time.
I am simply pointing out that if you use your own definitions of common terms that deviate from established science, you will not be understood.
@@renedekker9806 and what is time? It's a measurement of motion. Do you think that time is a physical entity that can be measured?
I'm just pointing out that if you don't treat your measurements properly, people start to believe that a unit of measure actually exists. Have you heard of the graviton? People actually think that their are gravity and time particles because they don't understand elementary physics.
Once again, so you understand, clocks don't measure time. They measure motion. Time is a measurement of motion. There are no time particles fir you to measure.
Going faster or slower in space doesn't change a unit of time. Just like an increase in pressure doesn't change the value of a degree. Or the length of an inch.
@@stewiesaidthat _"what is time?"_ - time is defined as that what (accurate) clocks measure. It doesn't get more difficult than that. Motion is defined as changing location over time, that is, it is related to both space and time.
_"people start to believe that a unit of measure actually exists"_ - I am not "people".
_"Once again, clocks don't measure time. "_ - and once again, so you understand, if you are going to use the term "time" (or "clock"; it is not clear which one you are redefining) in an alternative way, you are simply not going to be understood. Invent your own, new, terms if you are inventing new notions, and make sure you describe them carefully and meticulously.
Nice job. Like the smart way!
Better explanation than the ones in other videos, but still not good enough. I guess i accept the idea that oscillation can somehow make the time tick faster, but whose time is it? Is it really just the Earth time and not the rocket time? WHY?
from the Earth observer's point of view he is not experiencing this uniform gravitational field. If we want to be presice and say he is standing on the surface of the Earth and therefore experiencing the force then this experience is not the same as for the rocket observer since the strength of such gravitational field decreases with the second power of the distance to the far away observer. Therefore YES even the clock on Earth run slower due to this field but the effect is extremally small since the gravity field of Earth decreases very fast.
There is also another effect you might have in mind. Longitudal doppler effect. If the rocket observer was sending such lightpulses on Earth while accelerating towards it, the Earth observer would see that the rocketship clock is ticking faster and faster as he accelerates. While this is true this effect also occurs other way around from the ship observing the Earth clock.
The longitudal doppler effects are never mentioned in the twin paradox scenario just because it is not direction independent as the time dilation is. Therefore the effect of the outgoing yourney perfectly cancel out the ingoing yourney leaving just the true time dilatation contributions play a role.
If you want to know more about time dilatation and what effect has this longitudal doppler then watch my newest video :)
@@lukasrafajpps Hmm... Sounds very complicated, not sure what exactly i should ask, but since you started with some difference in experience of gravitation, my new questions that i am willing to ask are: Where that gravitation difference comes from? What exactly causes that difference? And how do we know that difference is really there?
@@eklektikTubb you simply measure the tidal forces. You can measure the gravitational pull on the ground and then 1m above the ground if you have a sensitive device then on the planet's surface it will detect less gravity higher up above ground whereas in the rocket it would detect the same everywhere
@@lukasrafajpps So where that gravitation difference comes from? And what exactly causes that difference?
@@lukasrafajppsplanets don't have a gravitational pull. Didn't you learn anything in physics class. The most sensitive device for measuring motion in space is the atomic clock. The greater the oscillation rate, the higher the operating frequency, the shorter the wavelength, the greater the clock's precision.
Two synchronized clocks, one on top of the other, will measure the different rates of acceleration in space each clock has. But that measurement has nothing to do time-dilation in the observer's time frame of reference. I'll keep this simple since biological process in animals are a little more involved.
Plants are accelerated through their lifespan by radiant energy from the sun. Their lifespan is measured in growing degree units -> usable radiant energy. A plant on the floor and a plant on the ground will have the same growth rate as the received the same amount of radiant energy. Going deeper, planting seeds into the ground, soil temperature is what determines germination and emergence.
Just because the observer is going faster in space doesn't necessarily mean it's going slower in time. Clocks measure motion in space. Not time. The observer is in a different time frame of reference subjected to different accelerative forces than the clock as the clock's cesium-133 atom is essentially in cryostasis. Prevented from being accelerated in time by an outside force.
Space and time are two separate frames of reference. The clock on the wall is measuring that locations motion in space, nothing more.
I don't quite understand why you brought up the equivalence principle at all, to be hones. If you are only using it to show a uniform gravitational field you are still in special relativity, as that is flat spacetime. So what you're doing is show that in flat spacetime GR reduces to SR, which is a fundamental premise of GR.
The description you give just shows that the math SR uses to describe accelerated frames is consistent with the equivalence principle. But you are still singling out the accelerated frame.
The formula you give already assumes that you can use the math of SR with proper acceleration g to calculate the redshift.
The schwarzschild formula does not depend on proper acceleration, since it is a feature of the curvature itself.
What have you gained?
I think this is why people remove the acceleration part from the scenario to explain the result of the paradox. You don't need acceleration or to invoke the clock hypothesis. Just calculate the pathlengths.
I had to mention it because the crux of the twin paradox is what is actually going on when you change the frame of reference and how the observer on the ship would perceive reality. Moreover, it is always nice to see the problem from different angles and this nicely shows the connection between the equivalence principle and the relativity of simultaneity which at first glance feel like two different things.
The "just calculate the pathlengths" argument almost never works when you want to explain the solution to somebody.
I agree. also, if you did need GR, how would that work in physics theories that are incompatible with GR but which contain SR, such as the standard model of particle physics? it would mean quantum field theories would all contain an internal paradox, and they do not. they are consistent (well, at least ignoring the problems at high energies but that's something else). They cannot include gravity, but in a toy universe that dosn't have gravity they work perfectly well. Special relativity is all that's required and there is, of course, no paradox. As you say, and as Lukas says at the start, you just measure the proper times along the paths. Since the paths are not the same, why should it be any surpise that they have different lengths? - it's not a paradox, it's not even surprising.
@@lukasrafajpps I don't actually think that is good practice in this case. It gives the impression that SR is incapable of handling the situation and GR is necessary. That's not true, though.
SR handles the situation by saying that acceleration is absolute.
In GR we get that acceleration is relative to local geodesics, but that doesn't show up in your explanation. And we're still left with the postulate that inertial path's are geodesics.
You can of course use the GR framework to handle the situation, calculate the Christoffel Symbols for the accelerated observer, plug them into the tangent vector integral, etc... But then you get even deeper into "just calculate the pathlengths" territory than before.
@@narfwhals7843I think it is insightful to bring up the equivalence, if only because a lot of predictions of the effects in GR are derived from the same effects in an accelerated frame. That includes the speeding up of clocks that are higher up in the frame, which is needed to explain what appears to happen during the turnaround of the spaceship.
This guy always seems like he's saying, "hey baby, let's go to my place." (wink)
This guy is intelligent in a very sane way.
15:07 If A sends a photo of himself and his clock 2 years after B's departure and another after 3 years, B will receive the first photo before and the second after turning around.
If A continues to send a photo every year, B will recieve them (+/-) every 3.3 month.
He will never see a sudden advance of A's time due to his own acceleration. He must conclude that the "time jump" he calculated did not happen in the real world.
This holds for both explanations with "simultaneity change due to the switch of referential frames (SRT)" and "pseudo-gravity due to equivalence principle (GRT)".
The "usual" paradox of twins has never happened, since one of them stays in an inertial frame of reference all the time, and the other, during the whole process back and forth, also turns out to be in a non-inertial frame of reference. But according to the special principle of relativity, only inertial systems are equal, and it is clear that in this case there is no symmetry between the twins.
The "real" paradox of twins has never been discussed in the scientific literature: let both twins leave the starting point (conditionally - one to the right, the other to the left, but agreed in advance on the same travel conditions) and return back to the starting position. Of course, now they are quite symmetrical: there is no difference in their age. However, both have aged! Thus, the paradox lies in the fact that it is impossible to specify in relation to which observer they now "should be" younger - the effect is real, based on their previous experience of traveling alone!
But when describing natural phenomena, physics operates with quantitative relations that make sense only with respect to a certain frame of reference and coordinate system.
So that's where the "paradox" is: special theory does not explicitly manipulate the concept of "global time" (as a big brother - an absolute frame of reference); and qualitative and quantitative values of this parameter are absent in relativistic formulas.
"Thus, Einstein's special theory of relativity does not eliminate Newtonian absolute space; it only creates for all physics, including electrodynamics, the same position that mechanics has had since Newton's time." (Born, RT, chapter VI, paragraph 10). Indeed, SR actually eliminated only relative simultaneity, leaving the right to be simultaneous within its own frame of reference (also in GR): that is, RT eliminated one-time "quantitatively", but not qualitatively.
P.S. On the invariance of the speed of light:
the asymmetry of time actually implies the accumulation of time, more precisely, history, variety, aging.
Instead of the Copenhagen and/or multi-world interpretations of quantum mechanics, the presence of spontaneous Lorentz transformations seems to be more physical.
“Summarizing, we can say that the postulate of relativity includes the statement that the uniform and rectilinear motion of the "center of gravity" of the Universe relative to some closed system does not affect the processes in this system." (Pauli, RT). Obviously, for an expanding universe, the opposite is true.
Apparently, the researcher can detect and measure the effect of the aging process in his own frame of reference caused by the phenomenon of global time t(universe)=1/H: ds^2=c^2dт^2=g(00)c^2dt^2=(1-Ht*)c^2dt^2, where the Ht* parameter
shows which part of the global the time "elapsed" in its own frame of reference, t* is the measurement time according to the clock of the resting observer, t is the duration of any physical process in its own frame of reference.
That is, an observer can measure the increase in the duration of processes in the laboratory frame of reference: dт=[√ g(00)]dt=[√(1-Ht*)]dt~(1-Ht*)dt
thank you so much, you made it clear 🤩🤩🤩
Your statement at 4min 20 about clock of A being slower to be 5.75 is incorrect, it must either be 23 years or 11.5 years as only one difference in v is being discussed here. The paradox is which is 23 or 11.5.
The distance is 20 light years for both, they cannot tell which is travelling the 20 light years but if they check watches at the end and one says 5.75 years has passed and one has had 11.5 years then that infers 2 velocities, one closer to the speed of light than the other.
Which is not the case in your example, there is just one v.
The paradox is explained by there being two DIFFERENT inertial reference frames , in this classic example this comes about by acceleration, but that is not the real solution, one frame having a higher velocity than the others is. The one with the higher velocity always has the slower clock.
5:49 now you could have made the trip take 16 years, now we got all these decimals.
Let's suppose we have a planet from which we launch 2 spaceships with the speed of 0.6c in the opposite directions towards targets 0.6ly-s from our planet. After one year both of them arrive to their target. How far are the spaceships from each other? It can't be 1.2 ly since that would mean they were departing from each other faster than c according all clocks... Do I miss something?
I don't think you have missed anything . I haven't seen anyone proved otherwise .
In relativity, whenever you ask a question like that you have to specify a reference frame in which you want to measure the distance since the length is relative quantity
@@lukasrafajpps Any of the spaceships can be a reference frame. After a year they will be 1.2 ly-s away from each other. At 0.6c there is no significant time dialation compared to the planet and absolutely nothing compared to the other spacecraft (they move with the same speed only towards the opposite direction) Also they will have zero information about each other since they are separating with 1.2 c from each other. I have never heard a satisfying, thorough explanation to what is happening here.
@@hsvmobileac They will be 1.2ly apart but only for an observer that was left at the original position and "stationary" in the frame of each ship they won't be 1.2ly apart since you have to use relativistic velocity addition formula. In the frame of each ship, the other ship is moving away with a relative velocity of 0.882c and therefore in the frame of each ship the other ship will be only 0.882 ly apart
See , you will never get an actual experiment because, nobody has ever proved otherwise. They just don't add the velocity that always the answer.
I find it funny that when we discover something too small , too larger , invisible and intangible, the explanations becomes more and more illogical . This is not always true , but it is a general pattern.
When these are true we need to spend more time accounting for as many variables as reasonably possible, and sometime realizing that our technology my not be advanced enough for us to make a theory, at least not a good one. I think the JWST was a good example of this , not saying I Know the answers, but the moment we could see at a literal higher resolution, so many theories now could be wrong , that because what Im now realizing is that those theories had more assumptions than actual data , because what we had was not enough to draw any kind of conclusion about the beginning of the universe .
Relativity of simultaneity is the true explanstion of the paradox.
Of course if you just look at spacetime diagram then there is no paradox because the acceleration is treated as absolute. The paradox is there only if one starts to ask how are the experiences of each observer different. Pure special relativity doesn't give any explanation for this, you have to just set up the experiment so that we know who is inertial and who accelerates.
ruclips.net/video/3V00tAfcHCI/видео.htmlsi=Xo1H-gSYkanSZ8Kc
Please, watch video The Triplet Paradox from Floatheadphysics.
@@lukasrafajppsSpecial Relativity gives the answer if you include relativity of simultaneity to time and length dilation.
@@laerteoliveira7923 I have watched his videos and they are nice but again triplet paradox is not a twin paradox it is just a special case of a certain initial configuration problem fully compatible with special relativity and the resolution is simply in the fact that we know which twin changed his frame of reference and which one was inertial the whole time. There is NO paradox. Paradox is there only if you deny yourself this information and if you do that SR is not capable of dealing with this.
The twin paradox in reality has to do with the relativity of the progress of time for different observers moving at different speeds relative to each other. It doesn't matter if they never see each other again. If I see a person in space moving at close the speed of light I can say their clock is ticking slower than mine. But from their point of view I am the one rushing at close the speed of light and they will just as validly say my clock is ticking slower. There is something profoundly fundamental about special relativity that we still don't understand that leads us believe there can be such paradoxes as the twin paradox.
There is nothing paradoxical about both observers seeing each other's clocks run slowly unless they can connect that to a physical event they both share. For that they have to meet up and compare clocks.
Observers in relative inertial motion to not have to agree on space or time intervals, only the combined spacetime interval will be the same.
You need to know where/when they will meet again to know who will be younger. Saying that the clock is ticking slower because of the relative speed is a mathematical trick and has no physical meaning.
That actually has its own name: the clock paradox. But there is not much paradoxial about it: they are making different measurements (specifically at different locations), so it is not surprising that their measurements disagree.
So if the traveler goes backward and forward because he forgot his keys before returning, will you keep adding those 17.4 years? It doesn't make sense.
If he is accelerating AWAY from Earth, then Earth's clock appears to run slower.
If each clock behave so peculiar, why we keep them? :)
Ah-ha-ha-ha! Yes! I'm the first poster!
Very good video. But? What an observer sees is different to what an observer calculates. When A looks at Clock B, what A sees is not what is happening at clock B at that time for A but what happened some time ago at Clock B. Clock B is OBSERVERED to run very slow on the outward journey, slower than the time dilation calculation, about normal speed during the acceleration, then runs rapidly during the return trip. When B looks at Clock A, what B sees must be the same relative thing except during the acceleration stage when Clock A is seen to run fast. But what if the acceleration stage of Clock B is about instantaneous, like Clock B bounces off a wall? What B sees Clock A doing is extreme. Clock A has to jump ahead years in a second as seen from B. And that makes the explaination unsatisfactory. Going into the wall, photons arriving from Clock A have to be years younger than photons arriving from Clock A when coming out from the wall even though the time difference is only one second. Plus The further away the bouncing wall is, the larger the amount Clock A has to be seen to jump in time. The position of the bouncing wall should not affect the length of the time jump. So as I say, the explaination unsatisfactory.
In relativity, we never talk about what we see but what is true. If you wanted to talk about what observers see you have to include aberration effects but these effects would cancel out on a round trip.
@@lukasrafajpps The problem here is we don't know what exactly is true. Science is based on empirical evidence which is what you see, not what you calculated. Here the calculation says years pass for A while B is accelerating. If the acceleration is near instantaneous, empirical evidence will I believe, indicate that this time elapse is impossible.
@@haroldnowak2042 _"If the acceleration is near instantaneous, empirical evidence will I believe, indicate that this time elapse is impossible"_ - The imperical evidence supports the notion that A's clock jumps forward during the turnaround. B can e.g. look at the light signals that arrive from A, and calculate at what time in his own frame those signals must have left A. That latter calculation gives different values just before and just after the turn-around, because of the changed relative speed. And that is what the conclusion is based on.
@@renedekker9806 2 photons leave A's clock 1 second apart. B receives them one just before and one just after B's turn around. Forget about the calculation, there cannot be a jump in what B sees A's clock is doing. Imperical evidence confirms this and is used in the the Sagnac effect.
@@haroldnowak2042 _"there cannot be a jump in what B sees A's clock is doing"_ - and there isn't, he does not SEE a jump (with his own eyes). But his calculations about the time (in his own frame) that photon left A are different when moving away from A versus moving towards A. It is that difference that leads to the conclusion that there must have been a jump. The jump is not about what he sees with his eyes. It is about his conclusions about what must have happened far away. I think the video explained that part well.
Relativity itself is not absolute, in the sense, to tell 'whole universe is revolving around earth' is true relative to an observer on earth, but it is absurd in reality. Similarly, among two brothers, only one can be relatively fast. How to say ? We have to consider visible universe in the background( Because we don't have a visible stationary background). Can we say whole universe is moving w.r. to a moving twin ? Of course ambiguity exists if the speed under consideration are very low like a few thousand kilometers per second. But with one twin say B moving at 0.87c( 2,61,000 km/sec), it is wrong to assume that whole universe is moving at that speed relative to B. So we can safely assume twin B undergoes time dilation. From Einstein's theory time dilation happens even without background because moving object has some origin when time measurement is started, of-course it is not noticeable by the moving observer, like in the case of speeding mu-meson from upper atmosphere.
Einstein knew enough about physics to be dangerous. The fact that people still follow him belies the intelligence of the scientific community and their lack of critical thinking skills. The laws of physics are equally applicable in all frames of reference. There is no muon time-dilation because there is no time-dilation simply by moving faster in space. Time-dilation, in biological processes, is the direct result of a decrease in energy accelerating the frame of reference. Plant seeds in cold ground and they take longer to germinate. Lower the incubation temperature for an egg and the embryo takes longer to develop. Where ia the time-dilation from an acceleration I'm space event? Does the ground temperature change simply because the earth is spinning faster? When the earth moves away from the sun, less energy from the sun reaches the ground. Is that time-dilation? How does traveling faster in space change the amount of radiant energy the mother hen puts out?
Applying the clock readout, an instrument that measures motion in space, belies your ignorance of nature and of physics. The cesium-133's atom is accelerated by a constant force. A plant's acceleration rate is determined by the amount of radiant energy from the sun reaching it. Animals acceleration rate is determined by the food it eats. Acceleration in space and acceleration in time are two separate events and need to be treated as such.
I believe that both SR and GR are slightly wrong. I believe that any Electro Magnetic Emission (EME) starts from a set point in space that has absolute zero movement. I am sure that if we could measure c (speed of light in vacuum) in one direction only we would have no problems with it.
If the above was the case we would have no problems calculating every body else's time accurate.
I believe that the first calculation where each person looks at his own clock only is the correct way to look at it. The reason is that I have looked at Einstein's famous train light clock in two ways. An addition to the usual perpendicular to the train I have also tried to calculate with it laying down so being horizontal and I found that we had the exact same time dilation. I believe that I calculated it correctly.
Then I have also thought about what is really happening and I believe that it comes from the speed of c (or information) inside an atom or even inside the smallest particle manifestation and it must be exactly the same that takes place there. If a particle is in any motion in relation to where a signal is emitted from then it must always be slower for a round trip.
Take a circle. Emit a signal from any point on the circle to the opposite side and wait for it to come back. If the circle is moving it will always take longer for a round trip regardless of which way the circle is moving.
(1) +1 one for not saying "There is no paradox", when there is. There's just no contradiction.
(2) +1 for not stopping at "there's no paradox because the acceleration breaks the symmetry between the twins." Duh! The paradox, as you point out, is that each twin observers the other's clock tick slower than theirs for both cruise legs of the trip, and the turnaround time t_A--> 0.
(3) Regarding resorting to GR time-dilation. There's a problem. Suppose after the turn around, space twin says "no, I'm going back to the star system", reversing the turn-around...well....then Earth twin's clock has to run backwards. And no one likes that.
(4) So in SR, the forward Earth clock jumps forward at turn-around, +1 for not calling that time dilation. The clock isn't even running as t_A-->0, rather, the clock needs a bias adjustment. It has nothing to do with how fast it's running, it just needs its lead/lag adjusted. That works well with (3).
(5) So there is still a paradox: that at the turnaround event...in the same place, at the same time, the time on earth depends on which way the twin is traveling, and you can toggle back and forth by changing speed. Ofc, that's just The Andromeda Paradox, which is just weird, and will never not seem paradoxical (I guess seeming paradoxical _is_ paradoxical..just like ethics violations).
Regarding the entire universe accelerating when you're in your rocket do so and claim to be stationary in a gravitational field: yes, the entire universe is accelerating, since ALL acceleration is just a bad choice of coordinates, and physics doesn't care about you coordinates. In the same vain: Earth is indeed stationary, and the universe revolves around is once every 23h 56h, with the Sun taking 24h, and the moon, around 25.
The andromeda paradox simply isn't a paradox.
The andromeda "paradox" states that depending on your acceleration you can move the present point on Earth arbitrarily, including reversing time.
Relativity does not state you cannot do that. So no contradiction and thus no paradox.
The reason is that any point you are able to "set" as the present will always be within the region of spacetime you can never reach and could never have reached in the past (the spacelike region), and thus you can't influence or see it.
The andromeda paradox is a philosophical question about what the "present" even means.
Congratulations! 👍 Great explanation. Intuitive, formulas and example magnitudes included. It is clear now if acceleration is needed for the explanation of the twin paradox. This last part is what other videos lack the most, even if they are trying to explain it. Now we can see the time difference due to pure acceleration (“gravity": equivalence principle) and due to the change of reference frame due to acceleration. I will say this video completely covers the twin paradox all around. For the understanding of the frames of reference geometry, I recommend the “Minute Physics” video (mentioned already in this video) and the video part 1 ruclips.net/video/1xb-z8ZyvI4/видео.htmlsi=Th_LlIB1TPAWr35x and part 2. (Part 3 if you want to do the math).
Physics cannot understand what people do not understand. There are so many videos because no one has explained it well.
No one cares about the return. People think like this. When twin A sees (thinks) twin B reach the star, he is frozen, and when twin B sees him reach the start, he is frozen. Each thinks the other is younger. When they meet, when we compare the frozen bodies, which one was right? I know the key is simultaneity, but this is what you have to explain.
Forget about the return, nobody cares about the return. How can you theoretically not see that nobody cares about the return, and you just explain the return. It is unbelievable.
Your explanations can be traced back to an article written by Einstein published in a newspaper more than 100 years ago - even though whyever some physicists do not agree.
The twin paradox is a mathematical contradiction, not a paradox. It indicates that Einstein's relativity and light constancy postulates are false, since no correct mathematical solutions can be deduced that are rigorous correct mathematics. In mathematics, a contradiction indicates that the assumptions used to deduce a result are false. Therefore, the twins paradox is an indication that the Einstein postulates are false, because they produce contradictory mathematical results for the two different twins.
Did you watch the video?
Sabine says it is wrong to say gravity is required to explain the logical fallacy in the setup of Twin Paradox. It made more sense to me. ruclips.net/video/ZdrZf4lQTSg/видео.html
I didn't say you can't explain but it is more conveniet for me because only equivalence principle tells you what is happening on the turnaround point and you can clearly see that the relativity of simultaneity is connected to the equivalence principle. But of course, you can always calculate the time differences only using special relativity as I said in the video
You're not handling the Paradox correctly. There is no acceleration in B's timeline. The chart you have at 7:20 is explicitly A's world view. In B's world view, it is A that has the acceleration. A is the one with a bend. You can't use A's world view because it'll always be internally consistent. The paradox occurs outside of A. If you use A as the definitive view, you are thus making the absolute judgement call on who is moving which violates the relativity of motion.
Cut both world views in half such that there's no need for that acceleration. Who should be experiencing time dilation? If you weren't told who was A and who was B, how could you tell which is A or B? If you were told, is there any experiment you can do that would show you were fed false info?
The acceleration of B is a physically measurable effect. You can't just cut it out and replace it with nothing, because that effect is necessary for two people who depart to meet again.
You can replace it with a third orbserver and then you get the same result if you add up the times of observer B and C.
I'm not replacing it with nothing. The acceleration is A's doing in B's world view.
@@AshersAesera The acceleration of B is clearly shown on an accelerometer traveling with B. Their experiences are not symmetric.
Only one of them can be said to have an acceleration that is consistent with turning around.
@@narfwhals7843 It is. Did you not watch the video? The entire universe attains an accelerated force towards B. B can attribute the reading of the accelerometer to the universe moving.
@@AshersAesera But A can not. Their experiences are still distinct.
Ships at sea travel for miles in order to turn. An entire planet turns on a sixpence. Yeah, right.
From B-perspective not only space between start-finish shrinked, time also. So "outside" time for him moves faster. By the way for the same amount: gamma for space and 1/gamma for time. With GR your conclusions was right but there is a different explanation. Need to do own video about it 🤔
P.S. I argued with someone in coments below that acceleration isn`t the case, speed relative to the speed of light is. Muon experiment and its half-life period.
The common explanation among physicists is that both time dilation and length contraction are the result of hyperbolic pseudo-rotation in the plane of time and direction of motion in four-dimensional Minkowski space-time. Here's something about it: ruclips.net/video/M724P4xPQf0/видео.html
Make the rocket twin go to the exact speed of light and the paradox is solved !
The speed of light is an absolute so that both of them would not have the "same experience" and the symetry due to relativity would be broken.
Gravity communicate at the speed of light, so what happens to the frequency of light when a Lazer is pointed directly up or directly down , how does gravity change the frequency of something it can even reach.
That is the same as a object accelerateing because no communication needs to happen , because the change in light wavelength is a appearance it's no actually happening.
The light source would have to be parallel with the earth or be at some angle that is not 90 degrees.
Since simplicity matters more than logic, for this example let say gravity is instantaneous, also the gravitational field is uniform. I noticed that many people view light is one giant object , yet it is made of individual waves , each wave would be "accelerated" by the same amount so how would the wavelength change if they never move further or closer other . The wavelength would only change in a non uniform gravitational field , which moving towards the earth would increase the wavelength, and moving away would decrease the wavelength.
I trust Dr don on thie
I think that the time dilatiom that happens in a gravity field and would make the ships clock slower is not equivalent to accelerating a ship to a standstill and then back to negative velocity. The case of a clock movong slow at speed ia necause it jas to go through more space in a certain time. The reason a clock clock in gravity is slow is a similar.raason that the space is expanded an amount and the clock again has to cover more space in a certain time. Neither is true for a ship accelerating. Also the aberration of the stars tells people on the ahip they are not stationary.
The time dilation from gravity is equal to the time dilation of a body moving at the escape velocity.
The good question is that if the observer A was standing on the planet experiencing acceleration why it doesn't speed up the clock of the ship observer? It is because his gravity field decreases with the second power of the distance from the center. It means that the gravity field at the position of the ship is very small.
"Also the aberration of the stars tells people on the ahip they are not stationary." - surely this is only the case if you assume the stars are stationary. The aberration would also happen if the observers were stationary and the stars were moving at sufficient velocity relative to them.
@@Raphael4722 you couldn't tell, since the stars emit light in a sphere, the aberration of their light wouldn't change their apparent position. You'd just see a different side of them.
@@lukasrafajpps the deeper you are in gravity the slower the clock, it does make sense that the ships clock would run even slower if acceleration made their clock even slower that the earth clock speeds up relatively, your proposing they decelerate very slowly, which doesn't help cover the 15 some missing years as quickly would help find those years...?
@@Raphael4722 😀 another flaw with that idea... You would have had to acellerate the universe 100s to many thousands of years ago to see a change 👻
So spaceship B travels 20LY, but as fuel consumption is a function of time it only requires 11.5LY worth..... riiiiiight... lost in space.
*Even the basis for clock mechanisms being distorted, really is just about differences between 2 clocks. As an example lets say 1 clock. A planet orbiting a sun as a clock. Spaceship A and B equidistant from it, spaceship B wouldn't alter that time.
Hi, I propose to you that Relativity is just an optical illusion, and because all of modern physics is based on Relativity, modern physics is fundamentally wrong and needs to be rethought. Relativity has a simple built in logical fallacy, and no theory based on a logical fallacy can be true, no matter how many experiments seem to prove it, or how many people say it is true. Below is a very simple logical argument highlighting the logical fallacy, using the same terminology Einstein used to derive Relativity.
According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion.
Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.
This argument is only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more evidence including both theoretical and experimental, so please keep reading. Hi my name is Dr William Walker and I am a PhD physicist and have been investigating this topic for 30 years. It has been known since the late 1700s by Simone LaPlace that nearfield Gravity is instantaneous by analyzing the stability of the orbits of the planets about the sun. This is actually predicted by General Relativity by analyzing the propagating fields generated by an oscillating mass. In addition, General Relativity predicts that in the farfield Gravity propagates at the speed of light. The farfield speed of gravity was recently confirmed by LIGO.
Recently it has been shown that light behaves in the same way by using Maxwell's equations to analyze the propagating fields generated my an oscillating charge. For more information search: William Walker Superluminal. This was experimentally confirmed by measuring radio waves propagating between 2 antennas and separating the antennas from the nearfield to the farfield, which occurs about 1 wavelength from the source. This behavior of gravity and light occurs not only for the phase and group speed, but also the information speed. This instantaneous nature of light and gravity near the source has been kept from the public and is not commonly known. The reason is that it shows that both Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong! It can be easily shown that Instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity and farfield light yields Einstein Relativity. This is because in the nearfield, gamma=1since c= infinity, and in the farfield, gamma= the Relativistic gamma since c= farfield speed of light. Since time and space are real, they can not depend on the frequency of light used. This is because c=wavelength x frequency, and 1 wavelength = c/frequency defines the nearfield from the farfield. Consequently Relativity is an optical illusion. Objects moving near the speed of light appear to contract in length and time appears to slow down, but it is just what you see using farfield light. Using nearfield light you will see that the object has not contracted and time has not changed. For more information: Search William Walker Relativity.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, General Relativity must also be an optical illusion. Spacetime is flat and gravity must be a propagating field. Researchers have shown that in the weak field limit, which is what we only observe, General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism, which shows gravity can be modeled as 4 Maxwell equations similar in form to those for electromagnetic fields, yielding Electric and Magnetic components of gravity. This theory explains all gravitational effects as well as the instantaneous nearfield and speed of light farfield propagating fields. So gravity is a propagating field that can finally be quantized enabling the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics.
The current interpretation of quantum mechanics makes no sense, involving particles that are not real until measured, and in a fuzzy superposition of states. On the other hand, the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics makes makes much more sense, which says particles are always real with real positions and velocities. The particles also interact with an energetic quantum field that permeates all of space, forming a pilot wave that guides the particle. This simpler deterministic explanation explains all known quantum phenomena. The only problem is that the Pilot Wave is known to interact instantaneously with all other particles, and this is completely incompatible with Relativity, but is compatible with Galilean Relativity. But because of the evidence presented here, this is no longer a problem, and elevates the Pilot Interpretation to our best explanation of Quantum Mechanics.
*RUclips presentation of above argument:
ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*Paper it is based on: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
I am amazed, exactly the same questions I placed for myself,.. Wou,..
I am really glad it helped you in the future I am planning to solve the twin paradox without time dilation and length contraction but just directly from the postulates and exactly compare what would observers see and what they would figure out based on these postulates. It could potentionally put more light on the twin paradox as well :)
perfect 😍
Teorii względności nie rozumiał nawet sam Einstein (opublikował ją dla hecy), a więc co dopiero mają z jego wypocin zrozumieć zwykli ludzie.
Майкельсона Морли 1881 - 2023 г завершенный на 50%. Вторые 50% опыта возможно выполнить с помощью некруглых катушек с оптическим волокном в 6000 м. Гибрид устройства с габаритами 25 см, возможно применить в автотранспорте, при движении прямолинейно измерять скорость 20, 25, 30 м/сек.
Исходя из прямого 💯% опыта Майкельсона Морли возможно доказать постулаты:
Свет - это упорядоченная вибрация гравитационных квантов. Постулат 2. Гравитационные поля регулируют частоту и скоростью света в вакууме.
Мне нужна помощь в совместном реализации изобретения. Вы ведите переговоры с специалистами по производству оптоволоконных гироскопов. Техническая консультация по ГИБРИД - гироскопу и оплата стоимости тестового устройства с меня.
Space and Time are two separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space just as rulers are instruments that measure mass.
Once you understand that, you can see that both twins experience the same amount of time as shown by the fact that their clocks used the same amount of energy.
Since force us required to accelerate an object in space, force is also causing an acceleration in time event. Astronauts with accelerated heart rates. Solar sails bursting into flames.
The only way to slow down time is to take energy out of the system. Placing Astronauts in cryostasis for instance.
Here's another situation I found very problematic: We start a spaceship towards a target 1.2 ly-s away.We turn on the engine and speed up to 0.6c. (no measurable relativistic effects here) Then turn the engine off. Then a minute later we repeat the acceleration process. What shall we see from Earth? I think the ship will disappear from our view. The ship will be faster than light from Earth. There must be some serious logical fallacy in the Theory of Relativity. I shouldn't be able to move toward any direction in the Universe without risking that somewhere there is an object in the Universe which - after I move - will depart from me faster than light. The whole theory feels absurd and illogical.
The ship will not disappear from view. You can never accelerate an object to the speed of light.
As you start the engines again, people on earth will observe that the same force does not yield the same acceleration, but less and less, due to time dilation. As the ship approaches the speed of light the observed acceleration will approach zero.
The logical fallacy was in your conclusion, because you did not consider all factors, not in Special Relativity.
It may feel absurd, that does not make it wrong.
SR was revealed prior to GR. Therefore, acceleration has literally nothing to do with SR. Meaning, there's something this channel's creator doesn't understand about Einsteinian Relativity. So you should learn from a real professional. Not some meep using Mathematics with an accent. Don't believe me? A simple google search of when Special vs General Relativity was published will show it.
There's a reason why it's called Special and General.
I don't remember saying GR was discovered before SR. Maybe you should watch the video again to really understand what I wanted to say.
@lukasrafajpps I didn't say that either ^. Minkowski spacetime is 4D spatial geometry of this universe. And Hermann Minkowski, the revealer of our 4D spatial universe, died in 1909. General Relativity was mathematically revealed in 1915. Meaning, an understanding of space and time existed before acceleration was even considered.
Acceleration is a feature of General Relativity which describes non-euclidean spacetime geometry. Special Relativity is euclidean. I.e. no acceleration is relevant.
The relationship of space and time was explained before gravity was even considered.
Show your audience that they're embedded within a 4-dimensional space, and that they don't have freewill and then you understand Special Relativity.
@@jack.d7873 "the revealer of our 4D spatial universe, died in 1909. General Relativity was mathematically revealed in 1915. Meaning, an understanding of space and time existed before acceleration was even considered."
Again, I don't see a connection to this video.
I said that special relativity has its limits due to the fact it only deals with the inertial observers.
Twin paradox however does not work only with inertial frames - This creates a situation that is impossible to make in SR.
Then I said "Maybe better answer can be found in a theory that is ABOVE special relativity"
This is due to the fact that for example General relativity fully contains special relativity plus more.
This video was not meant to talk strictly about special relativity but in general about twin paradox
There's no time dilation, it was just Einstein not being able to comprehend the difference between reality and illusion. If you pass by a light clock sitting on the ground and keep your eyes and head pointing straight at the scene as you pass by it, meaning not moving your eyes or head, then you might make the mistake of thinking that the photon in the light clock is taking a zig-zag path but is that the reality or merely an optical illusion? The obvious answer is it's an illusion, caused by you not keeping your eyes focused on the light clock as you traveled past it, moving your eyes or turning your head. So all you have to do to avoid being a victim of the illusion that time dilation is necessary is to always consider your own frame to be the one that's moving and never the other one, then everything will make sense, just like it did when you kept your eyes focused on the clock and broke the illusion.
Bad accent and also confused
This is totally wrong. You are confusing us with words like momentum and acceleration. Simply imagine 2 ships at one point in space. Both accelerate equally in opposing directions, then continue at a constant speed. One of the ships the decelerate turns around and then accelerates to a constant speed back to the starting point. The other ship does the same but a bit later. The ship that travelled the longer distance is younger. In this example we have completely eliminated the effects of force/momentum/acceleration.
You are totally wrong. Force equals Acceleration and Acceleration equals Force. Space and time are two separate frames of reference. The caesium-133 atom in the atomic clock is chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from bring accelerated in TIME when a force is applied to ACCELERATE it to an oscillation rate of 9 billion cycles per second.
Are either twins in cryostasis? Prevented from being accelerated in time? Do you know that clocks are shielded from electromagnetic waves? Are the twins wearing sunscreen? Clothing that covers up thin skin and prevents UV rays from causing premature skin aging?
The paradox originated from Einstein combining the frames of Space and Time and his ignorance of what a clock is measuring. C'mon man. Don't be stupid like Einstein. Think for yourself. What is wrong with this relativity crap? Why are heart rates in an accelerated state when a force is applied like when astronauts are being accelerated into space?
At best, both twins are the same age. At worst, the twin that experienced more space is 'older' because they also experienced more force that accelerates them in 'time'.
@@stewiesaidthat I have eliminated acceleration from my example and still one twin is older. So it's not acceleration. The answer is who travelled the shortest (yes I said shortest) space time will be younger. Acceleration may or may not affect the space time distance depending if it's proper acceleration or coordinative acceleration. Proper acceleration is defined as lorents factor cubed multiplied by the coordinative acceleration. Lorentz factor is a function of the ratio of velocity to speed of light. But this has been eliminated from the example above. Don't be stupid like Isaac Newton (only joking 😃)
@tnig you are the one being stupid. Do you not understand what a frame of reference is? Newton's Law of Motion. What is the frame of reference? Mass or Acceleration. Those are the only two choices.
Newton correctly figured out that acceleration is the frame of reference. That the apple fell from the tree because it had more acceleration in the tree than on the ground. Then he got stupid and tried to make mass the frame of reference and gave you gravitational attraction as a result. Mass as a frame of reference was disproven with the hammer&feather and feather drop tests.
Newton's law of Motion, F=ma, Mass (space) is one frame of reference, and Acceleration (Time) is another frame of reference.
The laws of physics are equally applicable in ALL frames of reference.
The observer is not in the same TIME frame of reference as the clock's cesium-133 atom is essentially in cryostasis. Trying to use the clock's readout to determine the observers' acceleration in time is ludicrous. The click is operating on a fixed power source while the observer's power source is self-regulating.
Lorentz transforms deals with the exchange of information between moving objects. It has absolutely nothing to do with the observer's frame of reference other than at the information level.
In the Twin Paradox, the ages can be whatever you want them to be because they are in different frames of reference. And, as we all know, Force equals Acceleration.
If you want the traveling twin to be physically younger, place them in cryostasis. If you want the stationary twin to be younger, place them in cryostasis.
If your twins are plants, regulate the amount of sunlight to achieve the desired effect.
Don't be ignorant like Einstein, who plagiarized everything because he didn't understand physics. Einstein didn't understand what a frame of reference is and cobbled together bogus physics to create a Spacetime fantasy universe. Don't be another Einstein.