Twin paradox (split)

[Abouzar Bahari]

Twin and Ladder paradoxes are real contradictions.

Some scientists believe the twin paradox can be resolved within the standard framework of SR: the traveling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey. Some of them suggest that the twin on the rocket is undergoing acceleration, which makes him a non-inertial observer. In both views, they think there is no symmetry between the space-time paths of the twins. Therefore, they reject this as a real logical contradiction.
These ideas tried to reject the twin paradox as they convert it to a non-symmetrical system, but they intermittently neglect the symmetry between the twin’s frames for the constant-velocity stage of the rocket motion, being a much longer stage in this travel.

From one of the brother’s view, the other one’s clock must be dilated in the constant-velocity stage of the rocket and when the traveling brother comes back, either of these twins believes the other one is younger. Therefore, this is a real contradiction in SR. The Ladder paradox is absolutely similar to the Twin paradox and comes from the symmetry of the inertial frames as the SR argues.

[Eise]

Please show this with a Minkowski spacetime diagram.

And that it is an experimentally proved fact doesn't matter to you? See the Hafele–Keating experiment, also mentioned above.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Some of them suggest that the twin on the rocket is undergoing acceleration,

This is not consistent with the framing of the problem

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

These ideas tried to reject the twin paradox as they convert it to a non-symmetrical system, but they intermittently neglect the symmetry between the twin’s frames for the constant-velocity stage of the rocket motion, being a much longer stage in this travel.

From one of the brother’s view, the other one’s clock must be dilated in the constant-velocity stage of the rocket and when the traveling brother comes back, either of these twins believes the other one is younger. Therefore, this is a real contradiction in SR. The Ladder paradox is absolutely similar to the Twin paradox and comes from the symmetry of the inertial frames as the SR argues.

You can’t just ignore the part of the problem that breaks symmetry when appealing to symmetry.

[Abouzar Bahari]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This is not consistent with the framing of the problem

You can’t just ignore the part of the problem that breaks symmetry when appealing to symmetry.

You and others like you are ignoring the most important stage of this paradox: the constant-velocity stage. This stage is completely symmetrical as SR says. This is a real test not hypothetical and you can do it with your twin. Just adjust your clock. One of you takes a rocket and the other places on the earth. Both of you think that during the constant-velocity stage of the rocket, the clock of the others is dilated and it is a real contradiction plus many other contradictions in SR. That is because the two inertial frames are not symmetrical as SR says. in reality, because of the quantum fields inside the vacuum (ZPF or Higgs field), the inertial frame, stationary inside the quantum field is not the same as the moving frame inside this field. In fact, only the moving one experiences the Lorentz transformations. 

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

You and others like you are ignoring the most important stage of this paradox: the constant-velocity stage. This stage is completely symmetrical as SR says. This is a real test not hypothetical and you can do it with your twin. Just adjust your clock. One of you takes a rocket and the other places on the earth. Both of you think that during the constant-velocity stage of the rocket, the clock of the others is dilated and it is a real contradiction plus many other contradictions in SR. That is because the two inertial frames are not symmetrical as SR says. in reality, because of the quantum fields inside the vacuum (ZPF or Higgs field), the inertial frame, stationary inside the quantum field is not the same as the moving frame inside this field. In fact, only the moving one experiences the Lorentz transformations. 

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

[Abouzar Bahari]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

What you described above is wrong. For starters you don't require the Higgs field at all for the twin paradox.

Under constant velocity the choice of observer and emitter makes no difference as the Lorentz transforms under SR are symmetric under change in vector. Once you have acceleration that isn't true anymore. 

It was not factoring in the acceleration terms that led to the twin paradox. The constant velocity ignoring the acceleration.

Once you include the acceleration the solution becomes apparent.

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it. Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed
In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question. In this theory, at higher velocities, change in length, mass, and time of the moving body happens without a reasonable cause. The main problem is that if the motion is the only reason for the slower working of a moving clock or contracting the length of the moving body, this is a breach of the mass-energy conservation law, because, no energy is applied to dilate the moving clock, and contract the body’s length. Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.
Furthermore, as we know, from general relativity (GR), the clocks are dilated and the length are contracted whenever they are located in a gravitational field. In fact, in GR, there is a physical reason for these changes: The gravitational energy works to make the clocks, slowed down and to contract the length. In a gravitational field, the biological activities of the organisms are dilated as well. Nevertheless, there is no physical reason for such transformations in the SR.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

In the time of Einstein, the vacuum was taught to be nothing or fill nothing. Today, we know that there is a quantum field inside the vacuum: Zero-point field/ Higgs field or the past-term: Ether. However, in SR, it is just mentioned that we can ignore the Ether since there is no influence from that. Today, from the Casimir effect and Lamb shift or others, we know it can affect the materials. Therefore, a moving body inside this medium is not symmetrical with the stationary one inside it.

There is no medium, but this suggests that you think the field is not Lorentz invariant.

 

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Let me elaborate more about that:

SR does not explain why the physical properties of the moving bodies are transformed

No physical properties change, as such. They just don’t have the same value, since they are relative to the frame from which they are measured. The value is not intrinsic or absolute. A meter stick measured by an observer in relative motion has a length shorter than 1m. But nothing physical has happened to the meter stick. It does not physically shrink just because I observe it. Thus, no mechanism is necessary.

But the explanation of the relative measurement is well known: c is invariant 

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

In SR, the S observer thinks the length of the moving body (S’) is contracted, its time is dilated and its mass is increased with the Lorentz factor. The S’ observer thinks the same about the S body. Hence, in the SR aspect, everything is relative. However, if these physical changes are real as demonstrated by the tests in accelerators, in airplanes or etc, the question is why these physical changes must occur for a moving body. SR has no answer to this question.

c is invariant

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Einstein wrote in his book (1920):
“A body moving with the velocity 𝑣, which absorbs an amount of energy E0 in the form of radiation without suffering an alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by an amount γE0“.
With no doubt, it is obvious that in this statement, the “mass-energy conservation law” is breached, unless an external factor from the vacuum causes a rise in the internal energy of the body from E0 to γE0.

 

So basically you don’t see how energy can be frame dependent?

A brick’s KE is zero in its own frame. To an observer moving at speed v, it has a KE of 1/2 mv^2

This is true in Galilean relativity.

 

[Mordred]

Along with the reply by Swansont. It may surprise you that under field treatment at the quantum level you don't apply GR as its far too weak to have any significant influence. Hence even under QFT all particle interactions and couplings for all particle fields the equations only apply SR. The couplings directly relate to the mass terms naturally. However the Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant so one must use the Dirac equations for QM/QFT which incorporates the the Klein-Gordon equation. 

However none of that is necessary for solving the twin paradox for the reasons mentioned by Swansont primarily different observers measuring an object does nothing to alter the properties of the object being measured. It only influences how its being measured not the object itself.

It sounds to me like you may also be trying to describe variant mass (relativistic mass) as opposed to invariant mass (rest mass), the terms in the brackets is the old terminology and yes both mass and energy are variant to the observer your GR application required to handle the inertial mass terms that being the need for a stress energy momentum tensor. So yes the use of GR with the stress energy momentum term is certainly a large bonus under GR however GR uses the same SR transformations including all the Minkowskii metric transformations. Under GR the Minskowsii terms are part of the Newton weak field limit 

\[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\]

 this of course all applies to the SO(3.1) Poincare group so yes in that sense GR does become more useful to describe  the inertial mass in terms of different observers in particular for the inclusion of the stress energy momentum term however there is also nothing to prevent SR from also employing the stress energy momentum tensor which it already does. It should be indicative that the distinctions between SR and GR become more trivial when you consider the same transformations apply to both it becomes more a matter of practicality. Particularly since any quantum examination under QFT employs the weak field limit under the same EFE statement above including the SO(3.1) group.

little side note one also shouldn't forget that those transformations differ depending on the type of acceleration change in velocity or change in direction.

However there is no real need to understand or use any tensor to understand the velocity as opposed to acceleration relations in the solution for the twin paradox.

 

Edited September 7 by Mordred

[Abouzar Bahari]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

There is no medium, but this suggests that you think the field is not Lorentz invariant.

 

No physical properties change, as such. They just don’t have the same value, since they are relative to the frame from which they are measured. The value is not intrinsic or absolute. A meter stick measured by an observer in relative motion has a length shorter than 1m. But nothing physical has happened to the meter stick. It does not physically shrink just because I observe it. Thus, no mechanism is necessary.

But the explanation of the relative measurement is well known: c is invariant 

c is invariant

 

So basically you don’t see how energy can be frame dependent?

A brick’s KE is zero in its own frame. To an observer moving at speed v, it has a KE of 1/2 mv^2

This is true in Galilean relativity.

 

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames.

1 minute ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames.

Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject? Let the others see our debate and they can tell their ideas. 

8 hours ago, Mordred said:

Along with the reply by Swansont. It may surprise you that under field treatment at the quantum level you don't apply GR as its far too weak to have any significant influence. Hence even under QFT all particle interactions and couplings for all particle fields the equations only apply SR. The couplings directly relate to the mass terms naturally. However the Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant so one must use the Dirac equations for QM/QFT which incorporates the the Klein-Gordon equation. 

However none of that is necessary for solving the twin paradox for the reasons mentioned by Swansont primarily different observers measuring an object does nothing to alter the properties of the object being measured. It only influences how its being measured not the object itself.

It sounds to me like you may also be trying to describe variant mass (relativistic mass) as opposed to invariant mass (rest mass), the terms in the brackets is the old terminology and yes both mass and energy are variant to the observer your GR application required to handle the inertial mass terms that being the need for a stress energy momentum tensor. So yes the use of GR with the stress energy momentum term is certainly a large bonus under GR however GR uses the same SR transformations including all the Minkowskii metric transformations. Under GR the Minskowsii terms are part of the Newton weak field limit 

 

gμν=ημν+hμν

 

 this of course all applies to the SO(3.1) Poincare group so yes in that sense GR does become more useful to describe  the inertial mass in terms of different observers in particular for the inclusion of the stress energy momentum term however there is also nothing to prevent SR from also employing the stress energy momentum tensor which it already does. It should be indicative that the distinctions between SR and GR become more trivial when you consider the same transformations apply to both it becomes more a matter of practicality. Particularly since any quantum examination under QFT employs the weak field limit under the same EFE statement above including the SO(3.1) group.

little side note one also shouldn't forget that those transformations differ depending on the type of acceleration change in velocity or change in direction.

However there is no real need to understand or use any tensor to understand the velocity as opposed to acceleration relations in the solution for the twin paradox.

 

What I have told is not related to the GR formulas, except that Einestein himself, first ignored Ether when he presented SR, but later, when he presented GR, he accepted it: Einstein himself accepted the Ether to some extent after his theory of General Relativity (GR). He wrote (1920): “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. However, this Ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it” 

[exchemist]

17 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames.

Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject? Let the others see our debate and they can tell their ideas. 

No they are not "real changes", they are just views from different perspectives. In the muon case, the earth-based observer sees an extension of the half-life of the muons, but the muons experience a shortening of the distance they have to travel to reach the ground. Both lead to the same outcome: more muons survive than would be expected from muons not in motion relative to the Earth.  That is the whole point of the muon example. It nicely shows how time dilation and length contraction are complementary, leading to consistent results without any physical change being implied.   

Edited September 7 by exchemist

[Abouzar Bahari]

10 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames.

Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject? Let the others see our debate and they can tell their ideas. 

What I have told is not related to the GR formulas, except that Einestein himself, first ignored Ether when he presented SR, but later, when he presented GR, he accepted it: Einstein himself accepted the Ether to some extent after his theory of General Relativity (GR). He wrote (1920): “We may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without Ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. However, this Ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it” 

Twin Paradox is not a hypothetical test. As I mentioned, you can do it with your twin. In the end, you will see him. One of the clocks must be dilated during the long constant-speed stage of this journey because of Lorentz transformations.  The paradox is which one is dilated. Please answer this question. You will say the moving one's clock is dilated and when I ask you again why this one is dilated, you will say because this one experiences acceleration at the start and deceleration at the end. However, this answer is wrong, since the much longer stage of constant-speed is much more important for time dilation. 

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No they are not "real changes", they are just views from different perspectives. In the muon case, the earth-based observer sees an extension of the half-life of the muons, but the muons experience a shortening of the distance they have to travel to reach the ground. Both lead to the same outcome: more muons survive than would be expected from muons not in motion relative to the Earth.  That is the whole point of the muon example. It nicely shows how time dilation and length contraction are complementary, leading to consistent results without any physical change being implied.   

So, what is the "real change"? for us as the observer, the fast muon are more extended of their age. This is a real and physical change in our world that we can see. Exactly when we see the real changes in the materials in High gravitational fields. 

[exchemist]

10 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

 

So, what is the "real change"? for us as the observer, the fast muon are more extended of their age. This is a real and physical change in our world that we can see. Exactly when we see the real changes in the materials in High gravitational fields. 

In the muon case there is no "real change". It is just a matter of different perspectives on the same physics. When you say "for us, and "in our world", the muons appear time-dilated, you are acknowledging that this is what an observer on the Earth will measure. An observer travelling with the muons would experience time passing at the normal rate. However he would see a shorter distance to travel to reach the ground, so more muons would survive. In other words the same result. Neither perspective is more "real" than the other. But they give the same answer.   

[KJW]

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

You will say the moving one's clock is dilated and when I ask you again why this one is dilated, you will say because this one experiences acceleration at the start and deceleration at the end.

No, it's not the accelerations at the start and finish of the journey that's responsible, but the acceleration in the middle corresponding to the travelling twin's turnaround. An interesting approach to the twin paradox is to consider not time dilation but Doppler shifts. While each twin is seen to be moving farther from the other, they appear redshifted, but while each twin is seen to be moving closer to the other, they appear blueshifted. However, the two twins do not see each other symmetrically. For the stay-at-home twin observing the travelling twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs after the light from the travelling twin's turnaround has reached the stay-at-home twin. But for the travelling twin observing the stay-at-home twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs immediately at the travelling twin's turnaround. Thus, the travelling twin sees the redshift and blueshift of the stay-at-home twin for equal times, whereas the stay-at-home twin sees the redshift of the travelling twin for a longer time than the blueshift.

 

Edited September 7 by KJW

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Wrong statement. The Lorentz transformations are real changes to the materials and clocks. The extended half-life of fast-moving muons proves time dilation in reality (not relative) to the moving objects. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

Hence, the Lorentz transformations are actual changes that happen to the moving objects. Although the atomic clock inside the moving high-speed airplane is dilated with the gamma factor, the stationary atomic clock on the earth is not dilated. The researchers test the Lorentz formulas for the moving frames and get results for the Lorenz invariance of the inertial frames. However, they have ignored to test the Lorentz formulas from the view of the moving observer who thinks he is at rest according to what the SR says. Therefore, what they actually achieved is the Lorentz invariance not the symmetry of the inertial frames.

Wrong interpretation. 

The Lorentz transformations are real changes to time and space.

An observer with the muon sees no change in its half life; they see the distance traveled shorten. But an observer on earth sees the lifetime extended, while the distance is unchanged.

Both can't be true if the change physically happens to the muon. (and you have an infinite number of reference frame who would all observe different values for time and distance)

[Eise]

2 hours ago, KJW said:

Thus, the travelling twin sees the redshift and blueshift of the stay-at-home twin for equal times, whereas the stay-at-home twin sees the redshift of the travelling twin for a longer time than the blueshift 

That is the shortest and clearest explanation i have ever seen!

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, KJW said:

No, it's not the accelerations at the start and finish of the journey that's responsible, but the acceleration in the middle corresponding to the travelling twin's turnaround. An interesting approach to the twin paradox is to consider not time dilation but Doppler shifts. While each twin is seen to be moving farther from the other, they appear redshifted, but while each twin is seen to be moving closer to the other, they appear blueshifted. However, the two twins do not see each other symmetrically. For the stay-at-home twin observing the travelling twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs after the light from the travelling twin's turnaround has reached the stay-at-home twin. But for the travelling twin observing the stay-at-home twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs immediately at the travelling twin's turnaround. Thus, the travelling twin sees the redshift and blueshift of the stay-at-home twin for equal times, whereas the stay-at-home twin sees the redshift of the travelling twin for a longer time than the blueshift.

 

I've always liked the solutions using redshift/blueshift it does help simplify matters but also introduces the distinctions between longitudinal and transverse Doppler effects.

Though another solution I liked was by Ryder Lewis in his Introduction to GR in that he will show the distinctions between the constant velocity cases and the constant acceleration case for the twin turnaround under the four momentum and four acceleration. Which is useful given that in accordance to the weak equivalence principle \(m_i=m_g\)  he provides the details to further show acceleration due to gravity has equivalence to inertial acceleration

this is a preview print but it has the relevant section page 26 is where he details the twin paradox 

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780511577468_A24404000/preview-9780511577468_A24404000.pdf

the hyperbolic relations he derives is useful specifically in regards to constant acceleration 

\[x^2-c^2t^2=\frac{g^4}{c^2}\]

the next chapter goes into the Sagnac effect leading from the twin Paradox then examining the Sagnac effect.

Edited September 7 by Mordred

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

You will say the moving one's clock is dilated and when I ask you again why this one is dilated, you will say because this one experiences acceleration at the start and deceleration at the end.

No, in fact I’ve never seen this assertion. In many formulations of the problem these are not even presented; the rocket is already in motion and the clocks are zeroed when they are close to each other, and compared when close on the return trip.

It’s the acceleration at the turnaround that matters.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, in fact I’ve never seen this assertion. In many formulations of the problem these are not even presented; the rocket is already in motion and the clocks are zeroed when they are close to each other, and compared when close on the return trip.

It’s the acceleration at the turnaround that matters.

Swansont and I cross posted the distinctions for the turnaround is presented in the Ryder article I posted.

7 hours ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

 

So, what is the "real change"? for us as the observer, the fast muon are more extended of their age. This is a real and physical change in our world that we can see. Exactly when we see the real changes in the materials in High gravitational fields. 

There is a way to show muon decay that doesn't even involve the twin paradox in terms of gamma factor effects the twin paradox isn't needed to explain why particle decays are affected by its momentum terms such as velocity explaining why time is variable isn't part of the twin paradox.  The primary use of the paradox is to help understand the distinctions between the first order terms (inertial frame/constant velocity) and second order terms (non-inertial frames/ acceleration) 

 One can readily show for example the decay rates of the Muon using Fermi's Golden rule for the gamma factor corrections. 

as this is something I already have in latex form I'm going to time save a bit

Fermi's Golden Rule

\[\Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|V_{fi}|^2\frac{dN}{DE_f}\]

density of states

\[\langle x|\psi\rangle\propto exp(ik\cdot x)\]

with periodic boundary condition as "a"\[k_x=2\pi n/a\]

number of momentum states

\[dN=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^2}V\]

decay rate

\[\Gamma\]

Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state

\[V_{fi}\]

density of final state

\[\frac{dN}{dE_f}\]

number of particles remaining at time t (decay law)

\[\frac{dN}{dt}=-\Gamma N\]

average proper lifetime probability

\[p(t)\delta t=-\frac{1}{N}\frac{dN}{dt}\delta t=\Gamma\exp-(\Gamma t)\delta t\]

mean lifetime \[\tau=<t>=\frac{\int_0^\infty tp (t) dt}{\int_0^\infty p (t) dt}=\frac{1}{\Gamma}\]

relativistic decay rate set 

\[L_o=\beta\gamma c\tau\] average number after some distance x

\[N=N_0\exp(-x/l_0)\]

Another related relation being the Breit-Wigner distributions.

\[\sigma(E)=\frac{2J+1}{2s_1+1)(2S_2+1)}\frac{4\pi}{k^2}[\frac{\Gamma^2/4}{(E-E_0)^2+\Gamma/4)}]B_{in}B_{out}\]

E=c.m energy, J is spin of resonance, (2S_1+1)(2s_2+1) is the #of polarization states of the two incident particles, the c.m., initial momentum k E_0 is the energy c.m. at resonance, \Gamma is full width at half max amplitude, B_[in} B_{out] are the initial and final state for narrow resonance the [] can be replaced by

\[\pi\Gamma\delta(E-E_0)^2/2\]

The production of point-like, spin-1/2 fermions in e+e− annihilation through a virtual photon at c.m.

\[e^+,e^-\longrightarrow\gamma^\ast\longrightarrow f\bar{f}\]

\[\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=N_c{\alpha^2}{4S}\beta[1+\cos^2\theta+(1-\beta^2)\sin^2\theta]Q^2_f\]

where

\[\beta=v/c\]

That should be sufficient to demonstrate that particle decay rates do require the twin paradox to explain and that it is the beta correction

\[\beta=v/c\] with the above that explains the difference in the decay rate. It should become obvious that it isn't the acceleration that determines the differences in decay rates but the differences in the velocity term in regards to the beta function. 

here is a reference using the above specific to muon decay

https://web.njit.edu/~sirenko/Phys450/MU.pdf

page 11 and 12

it should be trivial to relate the above to inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence in terms of the gamma/beta functions (shown in the link )

 

Edited September 7 by Mordred

[joigus]

4 hours ago, KJW said:

No, it's not the accelerations at the start and finish of the journey that's responsible, but the acceleration in the middle corresponding to the travelling twin's turnaround. An interesting approach to the twin paradox is to consider not time dilation but Doppler shifts. While each twin is seen to be moving farther from the other, they appear redshifted, but while each twin is seen to be moving closer to the other, they appear blueshifted. However, the two twins do not see each other symmetrically. For the stay-at-home twin observing the travelling twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs after the light from the travelling twin's turnaround has reached the stay-at-home twin. But for the travelling twin observing the stay-at-home twin, the change from redshift to blueshift occurs immediately at the travelling twin's turnaround. Thus, the travelling twin sees the redshift and blueshift of the stay-at-home twin for equal times, whereas the stay-at-home twin sees the redshift of the travelling twin for a longer time than the blueshift.

 

2 hours ago, Eise said:

That is the shortest and clearest explanation i have ever seen!

Yep!

I was thinking of the geometric given that two sides of a triangle in no way can be seen as a symmetric counterpart of the third. But this one is simply brilliant and brilliantly simple.

After all, the 'recoil' is never instantaneous, and you would have to rephrase/generalise to discuss curvature, or a triangle with smooth vertices. 

[Abouzar Bahari]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

In the muon case there is no "real change". It is just a matter of different perspectives on the same physics. When you say "for us, and "in our world", the muons appear time-dilated, you are acknowledging that this is what an observer on the Earth will measure. An observer travelling with the muons would experience time passing at the normal rate. However he would see a shorter distance to travel to reach the ground, so more muons would survive. In other words the same result. Neither perspective is more "real" than the other. But they give the same answer.   

Yes, true. In our frame (stationary frame (S)), the muons' life is extended. That is, we say, a real physical change. Hence, the clock of a high-speed rocket is really dilated, as in the Hafele-Kitting experiment for an airplane. However, the clock on the earth is not dilated for the S' observer on the rocket (contrary to what SR says). 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Swansont and I cross posted the distinctions for the turnaround is presented in the Ryder article I posted.

There is a way to show muon decay that doesn't even involve the twin paradox in terms of gamma factor effects the twin paradox isn't needed to explain why particle decays are affected by its momentum terms such as velocity explaining why time is variable isn't part of the twin paradox.  The primary use of the paradox is to help understand the distinctions between the first order terms (inertial frame/constant velocity) and second order terms (non-inertial frames/ acceleration) 

 One can readily show for example the decay rates of the Muon using Fermi's Golden rule for the gamma factor corrections. 

as this is something I already have in latex form I'm going to time save a bit

Fermi's Golden Rule

 

Γ=2πℏ|Vfi|2dNDEf

 

density of states

 

〈x|ψ〉∝exp(ik⋅x)

 

with periodic boundary condition as "a"

kx=2πn/a

 

number of momentum states

 

dN=d3p(2π)2V

 

decay rate

 

Γ

 

Hamilton coupling matrix element between initial and final state

 

Vfi

 

density of final state

 

dNdEf

 

number of particles remaining at time t (decay law)

 

dNdt=−ΓN

 

average proper lifetime probability

 

p(t)δt=−1NdNdtδt=Γexp−(Γt)δt

 

mean lifetime

τ=<t>=∫∞0tp(t)dt∫∞0p(t)dt=1Γ

 

relativistic decay rate set 

 

Lo=βγcτ

average number after some distance x

 

 

N=N0exp(−x/l0)

 

Another related relation being the Breit-Wigner distributions.

 

σ(E)=2J+12s1+1)(2S2+1)4πk2[Γ2/4(E−E0)2+Γ/4)]BinBout

 

E=c.m energy, J is spin of resonance, (2S_1+1)(2s_2+1) is the #of polarization states of the two incident particles, the c.m., initial momentum k E_0 is the energy c.m. at resonance, \Gamma is full width at half max amplitude, B_[in} B_{out] are the initial and final state for narrow resonance the [] can be replaced by

 

πΓδ(E−E0)2/2

 

The production of point-like, spin-1/2 fermions in e+e− annihilation through a virtual photon at c.m.

 

e+,e−⟶γ∗⟶ff¯

 

 

dσdΩ=Ncα24Sβ[1+cos2θ+(1−β2)sin2θ]Q2f

 

where

 

β=v/c

 

That should be sufficient to demonstrate that particle decay rates do require the twin paradox to explain and that it is the beta correction

 

β=v/c

with the above that explains the difference in the decay rate. It should become obvious that it isn't the acceleration that determines the differences in decay rates but the differences in the velocity term in regards to the beta function. 

 

here is a reference using the above specific to muon decay

https://web.njit.edu/~sirenko/Phys450/MU.pdf

page 11 and 12

it should be trivial to relate the above to inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence in terms of the gamma/beta functions (shown in the link )

 

All of these formulas are not related to this problem at all. 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

I've always liked the solutions using redshift/blueshift it does help simplify matters but also introduces the distinctions between longitudinal and transverse Doppler effects.

Though another solution I liked was by Ryder Lewis in his Introduction to GR in that he will show the distinctions between the constant velocity cases and the constant acceleration case for the twin turnaround under the four momentum and four acceleration. Which is useful given that in accordance to the weak equivalence principle mi=mg   he provides the details to further show acceleration due to gravity has equivalence to inertial acceleration

this is a preview print but it has the relevant section page 26 is where he details the twin paradox 

https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780511577468_A24404000/preview-9780511577468_A24404000.pdf

the hyperbolic relations he derives is useful specifically in regards to constant acceleration 

 

x2−c2t2=g4c2

 

the next chapter goes into the Sagnac effect leading from the twin Paradox then examining the Sagnac effect.

not related to this problem. 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Wrong interpretation. 

The Lorentz transformations are real changes to time and space.

An observer with the muon sees no change in its half life; they see the distance traveled shorten. But an observer on earth sees the lifetime extended, while the distance is unchanged.

Both can't be true if the change physically happens to the muon. (and you have an infinite number of reference frame who would all observe different values for time and distance)

I have explained to others what reality means to us. Please see my explanation. Why did you not answer my question?

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

Yes, true. In our frame (stationary frame (S)), the muons' life is extended. That is, we say, a real physical change.

But in the muon’s frame it is not, so this is not a physical change of the muon. It can’t be. There is no absolute frame of reference that dictates properties like time and length

 

[Mordred]

Yes I stated as such but you seem to be trying to include those factors in terms of the twin paradox. As I mentioned before the primary purpose of the twin paradox is to distinguish between the first order velocity terms and the second order acceleration terms resulting in the solution of the paradox which was never a paradox to begin with but amounts to improper examination by ignoring the second order terms.

If you recall you kept bringing up factors such as Higgs ZPE etc. Hence I'm showing that while related has nothing to do with solving the paradox.

Edited September 7 by Mordred

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Abouzar Bahari said:

I have explained to others what reality means to us. Please see my explanation. Why did you not answer my question?

You mean “Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject?”

Because you hijacked a thread to bring up your personal take on the topic, which does not reflect mainstream physics. Forum rules dictate that the discussion take place in speculations.

[Abouzar Bahari]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But in the muon’s frame it is not, so this is not a physical change of the muon. It can’t be. There is no absolute frame of reference that dictates properties like time and length

 

For us it is a real physical change orelse the relativity is useless completely. However, we use it in our satellites, airplanes, or others today. Please do not scape from the reality. The ZPF (vacuum/ Ether) is the absolute frame. 

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You mean “Why you split this conversation from the Twin paradox subject?”

Because you hijacked a thread to bring up your personal take on the topic, which does not reflect mainstream physics. Forum rules dictate that the discussion take place in speculations.

So, this is a crazy forum. Mainstream physics is not what you and other persons like you try to expand it. 

[swansont]

Just now, Abouzar Bahari said:

For us it is a real physical change orelse the relativity is useless completely.

The result is real, but your interpretation of it is not. Relativity is far from useless.

Just now, Abouzar Bahari said:

However, we use it in our satellites, airplanes, or others today.

I am well aware of this. But what is used is Einstein’s theory, not yours

Just now, Abouzar Bahari said:

Please do not scape from the reality. The ZPF (vacuum/ Ether) is the absolute frame. 

Are we moving with respect to this frame, or at rest with it? How can we measure this?