Einstein’s twin paradox solved by professor at LSU
At this very moment, you are probably sitting at your computer. This is your frame of reference. By this, I mean everything that moves around you would be described as moving towards or away from you; yet, there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference in the universe. No single person, place, or object is stationary. Over 100 years ago, Einstein used this to suggest the infamous twin paradox; which, today, is claiming to have been solved by Subhash Kak, a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at LSU.
Einstein originally used the example of two clocks – one motionless, one in transit. He stated that, due to the laws of physics, clocks being transported near the speed of light would move more slowly than clocks that remained stationary.
In the modern twin paradox, there are 2 identical twins; we’ll call them John and Gareth. We’ll also assume that John has a spacecraft that is capable of traveling 86% of the speed of light.
John gets in his spacecraft and travels away from Gareth at 86% of the speed of light for a given period of time. He then turns the craft around and heads back to earth; where Gareth is anxiously waiting his arrival.
“If the twin aboard the spaceship went to the nearest star, which is 4.45 light years away at 86 percent of the speed of light, when he returned, he would have aged 5 years. But the earthbound twin would have aged more than 10 years!” said Kak.
The twin paradox suggests that, when John gets back, Gareth will have aged faster than John; or John will have aged slower than Gareth. It’s all dependent on the frame of reference.
As an object approaches the speed of light, with respect to an object that is standing still (in a relative kind of way), time will slow down as the object’s speed increases. If you venture deep into the Sci-Fi world of hopefuls, you’ll find that some believe time will stop if you can achieve light speed; and even the ability to travel back in time if traveling faster than light. Unfortunately, this is not possible if you believe Einstein’s E=MC^2 equation; but for you hopefuls, I will tell you that you are only limited to what you believe to be false.
Howstuffworks.com has an in-depth article on special relativity and the twin paradox including the incorporation of the Doppler effect; it’s an interesting read that I strongly suggest if you’re looking for further background on the twin paradox.
The fact that time slows down on moving objects has been documented and verified over many years of experimentation; however, in the scenario I described, the paradox is that Gareth, the earthbound twin, is the one who would be considered to be in motion relative to John. Therefore, John should be the one aging more slowly. Many scientists, including Einstein, have attempted to resolve this problem in the past, but none of the formulas they presented proved acceptable.
Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak.
Using frames of reference with respect to probability, Kak’s proposed solution assumes that the universe has the same general properties no matter where one might be within it, and may one day aid in the design of quantum computers and communications.
Related Posts:
February 18th, 2007
Um, hate to tell you this, but this paradox has been solved for quite some time.
The twin left on earth is in an INERTIAL reference frame, so he is the one that ages, while the one on the rocket is in a NON-INERTIAL frame (undergoing acceleration when he speeds up, and slows down near the endpoints of the journey), so he is the one that experiences the relativistic effects of time dilation.
Seriously, this isn’t news. This isn’t even a problem. In fact, if you take an undergraduate 300-level course on modern physics that covers special relativity, they will tell you this right in the book. (That’s where I learned it 20 years ago.)
Sorry.
February 18th, 2007
THE PRINCIPLE EINSTEIN DID NOT INTRODUCE
Scientists all know Einstein managed to deduce his divine theory from a few simple principles. An ordinary mortal cannot do so and in scientific (not religious) hymns Einstein is referred to as “dee-vine Einstein”:
No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel –
He should have been given four!
No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein –
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That’s always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
Yet assume some additional principle, one that Einstein did not find it suitable to introduce, is indispensable:
http://www.physorg.com/news90697187.html
“First suggested by Albert Einstein more than 100 years ago, the paradox deals with the effects of time in the context of travel at near the speed of light. Einstein originally used the example of two clocks – one motionless, one in transit. He stated that, due to the laws of physics, clocks being transported near the speed of light would move more slowly than clocks that remained stationary….Einstein and other scientists have attempted to resolve this problem before, but none of the formulas they presented proved satisfactory. Kak’s findings were published online in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and will appear in the upcoming print version of the publication. “I solved the paradox by incorporating a new principle within the relativity framework that defines motion not in relation to individual objects, such as the two twins with respect to each other, but in relation to distant stars,” said Kak.”
If the new principle is really essential, there is no reason why Einsteinians should continue to sing “dee-vine Einstein” so fiercely. If, in the absence of the additional principle, some of Einstein’s results prove only suggested but not rigorously deduced, “dee-vine Einstein” should be reduced to “Einstein” or just “Albert”. However Kak, the discoverer of the additional principle, should automatically become “dee-vine Kak”. That would be fair: after all, Einstein made enough money in days long gone although his deductions were invalid whereas now Kak’s situation is different.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
March 4th, 2007
HOW FRAGILE SCIENCE IS
At first sight, Einstein’s crime is a small crime. Initially he adopted the emission theory of light, c’=c+v, where c’ is the speed of photons as measured by an observer, c=300000km/s is the CONSTANT speed of the photons RELATIVE TO THE LIGHT SOURCE and v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. Then he realized it would be more profitable for him to become a divine creator of miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) and accordingly introduced the false principle of (absolute) constancy of the speed of light, c’=c:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton, “Einstein’s Investigations of Galilean Covariant Electrodynamics prior to 1905″
In the end Einstein realized the false principle of (absolute) constancy of the speed of light was too dangerous and partially restored the truth by recognizing that the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential (see Chapter 22 in his “Relativity”). However his miracles killed theoretical physics (it was already half dead since entropy miracles had been ravaging for 50 years). So nowadays Einsteinians make money essentially in two ways. On one hand, they continue to destroy human rationality by teaching Einstein’s miracles; on the other, they constantly “improve” Einstein’s theory by camouflaging the antecedent of the miracles, the false principle of (absolute) constancy of the speed of light. Einsteinians can even go so far as to say Einstein’s special relativity is wrong:
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm “Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein’s insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it.”
Scientists would not react to Einsteinians’ discovery that special relativity is wrong. They know: just another original way of making money.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
March 10th, 2007
EDUCATION AND THE TWIN PARADOX
Is acceleration the cause of the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin? Educational principles in the world of Einstein presuppose oscillating between the absurdity of the answer yes and the absurdity of the answer no until any rationality disappears. Educators should only keep an eye on the oscillation, without hinting at either answer. However even in the world of Einstein educators make mistakes. Sometimes they do drop a hint and then they should repair the harm as quickly as possible. Consider Problem 19, “Modified twin paradox”, on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
In the previous version of the textbook there was the following additional text:
“This form of the twin paradox loses a bit of the punch of the usual statement of the problem, since we don’t compare the ages of the same two people before and after the journey. But on the other hand, THIS VERSION OF THE PROBLEM DOES NOT INVOLVE ACCELERATION.”
Needless to say, by hinting that acceleration is immaterial to the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin the educator had made a huge strategic mistake. However in the present version of the textbook the situation is under control again and the oscillation between the two absurdities can continue.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
March 15th, 2007
THE SMELL OF DEAD SCIENCE
Five years ago Einsteinians quite unexpectedly found it suitable to extract money not from singing dithyrambs and worshipping Divine Albert but, rather, from challenging Divine Albert’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light and hinting at “a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory”. The journal Nature wholeheartedly helped them:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54394,00.html
“Was Einstein Wrong?…. A team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics — Einstein’s theory of relativity…. “That means giving up the theory of relativity and E-mc squared and all that sort of stuff,” Davies told Reuters….Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature….. They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which Davies summarizes as “you can’t get something for nothing.”…. “If what we’re seeing is the beginnings of a paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory, it is very hard to know what sort of reasoning to bring to bear.”…. “For example, there’s a cherished law that says nothing can go faster than light and that follows from the theory of relativity,” Davies said. The accepted speed of light is 300,000 km (186,300 miles) per second. “Maybe it’s possible to get around that restriction, in which case it would enthrall Star Trek fans because at the moment even at the speed of light it would take 100,000 years to cross the galaxy. It’s a bit of a bore really and if the speed of light limit could go, then who knows? All bets are off,” Davies said.”
Sadly, the “paradigm shift in physics like what happened 100 years ago with the theory of relativity and quantum theory” did not happen and now one finds the same Einsteinians relying again on the old money-spinner, Divine Albert’s false principle of constancy of the speed of light:
http://www.asuwebdevil.com/issues/2007/02/23/news/699963
“For this prof, it’s only a matter of time…..Davies said an object traveling at a given speed experiences time slower relative to a stationary object. The faster the object moves, the slower it experiences time, he said. If a man traveled at 99 percent the speed of light for a certain amount of time to a point in space, then turned around and came back, he would find people on Earth aged years more than he did.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
April 1st, 2007
HOW TO PROVE EINSTEIN WRONG
If one is really interested in verifying Einstein’s theory, one could start from the following text written by a fashionable Einsteinian:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Tom Roberts: “If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer’s frame…..The Doppler effect is the observed variation in frequency of a source when it is observed by a detector that is moving relative to the source. This effect is most pronounced when the source is moving directly toward or away from the detector….”
What is the value of k and how is it related to the frequency variation? Judging from what another fashionable Einsteinian has admitted, the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the value k=1 is correct:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: “Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity……THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.”
But the problem is more complicated. If there had been more honesty in the relativity cult, the experiment of Michelson-Morley would have led to two competing interpretations:
1. AS FAR AS THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONCERNED, Newton’s particle model of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c’=c+v, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. That is what the emission theory says; no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) can be introduced.
2. The speed of light is constant, c’=c, independent of v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are OBLIGATORY – without them the falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light (c’=c) would be obvious.
The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second was adopted in 1905. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light (c’=c+v), thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the gravitational frequency variation factor), and at the same time conserved the false principle of constancy of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the rationality of generations of scientists (see Chapter 22 in Einstein’s “Relativity” for more detail).
Einstein reintroduced the true principle of variability of the speed of light in 1911 when he showed that the speed of light varied with the gravitational potential in accordance with the equation
c’ = c(1 + V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence principle as shown in
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4
Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein’s 1911 equation and you obtain c’=c+v. For that reason relativists do not like Einstein’s 1911 equation c’=c(1+V/c^2) and often declare it wrong, although in 1960 Pound and Rebka confirmed it implicitly by measuring a frequency variation
f’ = f(1 + V/c^2)
As for the Doppler effect, it would be difficult for relativists to claim that, although the frequency variation measured by Pound and Rebka confirmed the principle of variability of the speed of light c’=c+v, the frequency variation in the slightly different (no acceleration) Doppler situation would be consistent with the false principle of constancy of the speed of light c’=c.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
January 15th, 2011
Hello, just stopped by doing some research for my Rochester 4g website. Can’t believe the amount of information out there. Looking for something else, but very nice site. Have a great day.