Special Relativity Paradox

[arkain101]

I believe this is an accurate expression of a paradox based on a specific conception of time. That is, "Time: Something a clock measures".

Scenario:
Three reference frames:

a)We have a person on earth with a digital clock (Person "E" / Clock "E")

b)We have a person in space orbiting earth 1000km away at a very high velocity. (Person "S" / Clock "S")

c)We have a star "The sun" (to actual scales)




Because of the simplicity of this paradox we can fast forward to some hypothetical results.

At the beginning of the experiment, Clock E and S are synchronized.

Then one year later:

When clock E strikes 12:00pm Person E observes clock S is 5 minutes behind and reads 11:55am.

Also,

When clock S strikes 12:00pm person S observes clock E is 5 minutes ahead and reads 12:05pm.


If this is true, then Person E has experienced 5 minutes more of "time" than person S.

This should suggest that when person E and S observe the sun they observe the sun over a 5minute time difference. This would suggest that the sun is now existing in two different realms of "time"; A realm of time for person S and a realm of time for person E.

This is the paradox. The sun does not and is not existing in two different realms of time. Especially understandable if person S returns to earth and shakes the hand of person E and they both observe the sun with their clocks differing by 5 minutes.

Again this is a paradox if we accept that (the digital) clocks measure time.



If we perform this thought experiment again, only, we do not use digital clocks, we use atomic clocks and get the same results, I believe we could conclude the following.

Time is not only something that a clock measures, but also strictly and independently an intimate part of electromagnetism.

Either way. Is this paradox correct, and if so, is it solvable?

[EWright]

There is no paradox if you understand my Theory of Temporal Relativity.

[CraigD]

There is no paradox in the scenario described in post #1.

When person S returns to near and rest relative to person E, clock E reads 1 year:0 days:12:05, and clock S reads 1:0:12:00. Both agree that the Sun has aged 1:0:12:00 as measured by clock E. That this age disagrees with clock S is no more paradoxical that clock S disagreeing with clock E.

The reader may find it helpful to visualize that, compared to the speed of person S relative to person E (about .004357 c, accounting for both special and general relativistic time dilation, and assuming that person S doesn’t experience a prolonged high acceleration), the speed of person E relative to the Sun (about .00009935 c) is practically zero. The sun and person E can practically be considered the same inertial frame.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I believe this is an accurate expression of a paradox based on a specific conception of time. That is, "Time: Something a clock measures".

Scenario:
Three reference frames:

a)We have a person on earth with a digital clock (Person "E" / Clock "E")

b)We have a person in space orbiting earth 1000km away at a very high velocity. (Person "S" / Clock "S")

c)We have a star "The sun" (to actual scales)




Because of the simplicity of this paradox we can fast forward to some hypothetical results.

At the beginning of the experiment, Clock E and S are synchronized.

Then one year later:

When clock E strikes 12:00pm Person E observes clock S is 5 minutes behind and reads 11:55am.

Also,

When clock S strikes 12:00pm person S observes clock E is 5 minutes ahead and reads 12:05pm.


If this is true, then Person E has experienced 5 minutes more of "time" than person S.

This should suggest that when person E and S observe the sun they observe the sun over a 5minute time difference. This would suggest that the sun is now existing in two different realms of "time"; A realm of time for person S and a realm of time for person E.

This is the paradox. The sun does not and is not existing in two different realms of time. Especially understandable if person S returns to earth and shakes the hand of person E and they both observe the sun with their clocks differing by 5 minutes.

Again this is a paradox if we accept that (the digital) clocks measure time.



If we perform this thought experiment again, only, we do not use digital clocks, we use atomic clocks and get the same results, I believe we could conclude the following.

Time is not only something that a clock measures, but also strictly and independently an intimate part of electromagnetism.

Either way. Is this paradox correct, and if so, is it solvable?

CraigD answered this in by assuming that you meant one thing by "observe the sun over a 5minute time difference", And I'll answer it assuming you meant another.

From the way you stated the problem, I'm going to assume you meant that they will observe the Sun at different points of it's path in the sky. (one will see the Sun at its noon position, and one will see it at a 5 mins from noon position.) The reason I'm making this assumption is that I have run across others who have tried to make this argument.

Be assured, this will not happen, and is not what Relativity predicts will happen.

Both E and S see the Sun in the same position at the end, They will just disagree as to how much time passed from the start of the experiment to the finish. If the Sun started at its noon position and returned to its noon position one year later according to E, then it started at the noon position, and returned to the noon position one year minus 5 min later according to S.
IOW, according to S, the Earth simply took a little less than 24 hrs to complete each Solar day(The Earth rotated faster according to S)

No paradox.

[arkain101]

Thank you for the responses.

When person S returns to near and rest relative to person E, clock E reads 1 year:0 days:12:05, and clock S reads 1:0:12:00. Both agree that the Sun has aged 1:0:12:00 as measured by clock E. That this age disagrees with clock S is no more paradoxical that clock S disagreeing with clock E.

I believe I mentioned that this was only a valid paradox if we had accepted that mechanical clocks or digital clocks literally measured time. The argument would be that Person E and S would differ in their measurements of the age of the sun, or any part of the universe for that matter, a difference of 5 minutes.

So my argument is that the only valid clock to use in these kinds of experiments are atomic clocks that operate from actual electromagnetic vibration. And furthermore, that atoms may "age slower" but macroscopic action at a distance changes only in the observation but not in the actual frame of reference. That is, what we observe is light which can be manipulated and what is the source of light can not be observed without some value of distance and time separation, so it is to conclude, that the laws of physics remain the same in each frame of reference however, observations can be manipulated along the paths between observers, and that atomic material is the only scale that can change in their age.
The reason I make this argument is that Person E and S have differing world lines. However, if they shake hands at the end of the experiment, the world lines must merge, and thus all the actions that have occurred must become observable. So even if Person S has appeared to person E to be moving slightly slower throughout the year untill person E is observing a 5minute delay in person S's actual realtime, if they meet this delay must be made up for if the world lines are to merge.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Thank you for the responses.




I believe I mentioned that this was only a valid paradox if we had accepted that mechanical clocks or digital clocks literally measured time. The argument would be that Person E and S would differ in their measurements of the age of the sun, or any part of the universe for that matter, a difference of 5 minutes.

A difference in the age of the Sun, how? If by its own internal processes (number of rotations, Sun spot formation, percentage of hydrogen converted to helium, etc), then both E and S agree exactly on how much the Sun has "aged". They only disagree how much time has past by their own measurement.

And yes, they are literally measuring time. The problem you seem to be having is that you want to consider "time" as an absolute, and it isn't. E measures a different "time" for the interval than S does, and both determinations of how much "time" has passed are equally valid.

[arkain101]

Hello Janus,

The problem you seem to be having is that you want to consider "time" as an absolute, and it isn't. E measures a different "time" for the interval than S does, and both determinations of how much "time" has passed are equally valid.

The problem I am bringing forth (not having) is, if a clock S (mechanical clock) moves slower and operates slower, then so will person S and the actions he performs relative to person E.

After a year the ever growing delay between person S and E reaches 5 minutes. This means one of two things.

1)
-There is an actual time delay and difference in world lines between the two reference frames; S and E.
-Person E is observing Person S with 5 minutes of delay. For example, If person S stops orbiting earth and flies down to earth and lands next to person E and shakes his hand, during this, person E must observe the events of person S in such a way as to make up the 5 minutes of delay, which would be fast forward, in order for their world lines to merge so that they may shake hands.

or

2)
-There is no time delay, and the mechanical clocks do not change.
-Person E does not observe person S to move more slowly and vice versa.
-There is however a dilation at the atomic scale.



More simply put.

a)It must be clarified which type of "clock" (mechanical or atomic ie: light clock) we are talking about in a Real or Hypothetical Special Relativity experiment.

b)Information can not be lost. Thus, if any reference frame is observed to have actions occur at a slower than "normal" rate (slow motion scientist walking around as an example) then when and if the slower time reference frame returns to the observer information must speed up in order for the total of the events to be observed.
How else would the two reference frames ever meet unless the world lines merged and they each accepted they met at the same 'time'.

I believe this is a paradox, and I have learned very little ACTUAL experiments that do not use atomic clocks to measure any kind of dilation that is predicted by special relativity.

Many thought experiments I have read explain examples such as slow moving scientists, bouncing balls, clocks, etc. If this were true, it would mean the world lines between the (most often) two reference frames were seperating and that leaves the option of a)information being lost or b)some macroscopic observable dilations are illusionary and not literal.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Hello Janus,



The problem I am bringing forth (not having) is, if a clock S (mechanical clock) moves slower and operates slower, then so will person S and the actions he performs relative to person E.

No, you have a problem. Essentially, you are bringing your own preconceived notion of the nature of time into the discussion, and this preconceived notion is incompatible with the nature of time under Relativity.

After a year the ever growing delay between person S and E reaches 5 minutes. This means one of two things.

1)
-There is an actual time delay and difference in world lines between the two reference frames; S and E.
-Person E is observing Person S with 5 minutes of delay. For example, If person S stops orbiting earth and flies down to earth and lands next to person E and shakes his hand, during this, person E must observe the events of person S in such a way as to make up the 5 minutes of delay, which would be fast forward, in order for their world lines to merge so that they may shake hands.

Wrong. They meet up and disagree as to what the time duration is since they last met. You are again trying to treat time as a universal background against which events occur rather than something measured separately and uniquely by E and S.

or

2)
-There is no time delay, and the mechanical clocks do not change.
-Person E does not observe person S to move more slowly and vice versa.
-There is however a dilation at the atomic scale.

There can't be dilation at the atomic scale without there being time dilation at the macroscopic scale.

More simply put.

a)It must be clarified which type of "clock" (mechanical or atomic ie: light clock) we are talking about in a Real or Hypothetical Special Relativity experiment.

b)Information can not be lost. Thus, if any reference frame is observed to have actions occur at a slower than "normal" rate (slow motion scientist walking around as an example) then when and if the slower time reference frame returns to the observer information must speed up in order for the total of the events to be observed.
How else would the two reference frames ever meet unless the world lines merged and they each accepted they met at the same 'time'.

Once again, you are using time as a universal background, And it isn't.

I believe this is a paradox, and I have learned very little ACTUAL experiments that do not use atomic clocks to measure any kind of dilation that is predicted by special relativity.

Many thought experiments I have read explain examples such as slow moving scientists, bouncing balls, clocks, etc. If this were true, it would mean the world lines between the (most often) two reference frames were seperating and that leaves the option of a)information being lost or b)some macroscopic observable dilations are illusionary and not literal.

Until you come to terms with the true nature of time you are going to continue to struggle with Relativity and continue to see paradoxes where none exist.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

… This means one of two things.

1)
-There is an actual time delay and difference in world lines between the two reference frames; S and E.

This is what the theory of relativity predicts, and a very large body of precise experimental data confirms.

Though the agreement between predicted and actual clock data from GPS satellites is one of the best known and most often mentioned confirmations of relativity, it’s not an example of the “twin paradox” scenario described in this thread, because the clocks on the satellites actually run faster, not slower, than identical clocks on the ground at the equator. This is because gravitational time dilation decrease with the satellite’s altitude, and velocity time dilation, which depends of orbital speed, which also decreases with altitude, decreases also. The result is that, at an altitude up to about 3280 km, satellite clocks run slower than surface clocks, then faster than them above that altitude. GPS satellites orbit at about 20200 km.

Originally Posted by arkain101

-Person E is observing Person S with 5 minutes of delay. For example, If person S stops orbiting earth and flies down to earth and lands next to person E and shakes his hand, during this, person E must observe the events of person S in such a way as to make up the 5 minutes of delay, which would be fast forward, in order for their world lines to merge so that they may shake hands.

This idea the world lines of person E and S must “merge” in order for them to be able to shake hands, etc, isn’t a prediction of relativity, nor suggested by any experimental evidence. If such a thing were true, none of us would be able to shake hands, as we’ve all moved at slightly different relative speeds and at slightly different altitudes, so all have followed slightly different world lines, and experienced slightly different durations of proper time between events.

In short, the idea of people getting “out of sync” in such a way that they can occupy nearby positions in spacetime, yet not interact, though it appears in various popular SF stories, isn’t a real scientific idea.

Originally Posted by arkain101

… It must be clarified which type of "clock" (mechanical or atomic ie: light clock) we are talking about in a Real or Hypothetical Special Relativity experiment.

According to relativity, and well-supported by experiments and other theories, it doesn’t matter what kind of clock is used to measure proper time.

Because time dilation effects for nearly all phenomena involving what we usually call “clocks”, such as the compact atomic clock on GPS satellites and large one in ground stations, these clocks must be very accurate and precise to detect them. If we had large, high-speed spacecraft, nearly any kind of clock could.

[arkain101]

Okay. Thank you for the responses. It has been awhile since I have done any work with physics so I was curious to get some opinions on some ideas.

I will consider your responses and see where that takes me.