i've started this thread as a carry on from another thread.

it entailed a short exchange between myself and Tim Thompson on the subject of time dilation and lorentzian contractions/rotations.

in that discussion Tim stated that the twins paradox was not an example of time dilation.

regardless of that opinion/position, the twins paradox was formulated many years ago as an example of time dilation...which had previously been expressed as the clock paradox by einstein.

and although Tim wishes not to call it time dilation....still the same parameters are involved and the same results obtained eg: 2 clocks (or twins) with 2 separate and distinct spacetime lines that are at odds with each other...hence the paradox.


so i've started this thread to again address the concern i have with these relativistic effects.

this is unrelated to mathematics...focusing on what i believe is a crucial problem.
ie: "how the data is applied".

i propose that these relativistic exercises should never devolve into paradoxes...at least not to the extent that they cause conflict with real spacetime....and that they are simply optical illusions...and should be treated as such....nothing more or less.


in the following sections i put forward an argument as to why i think there is no real paradox involved in time dilation...and also comment on a few associated points.

************************************************** *************
************************************************** *************







************************************************** *************
************************************************** *************

to achieve time dilation, we need data...which is supplied by light, travelling at velocity c.

we also require an observer (or detector if it's gps) to receive the light/data....and something to observe (say "the observee", who will transmit the light/data).

************************************************** ******
nb: light takes time to travel..the further the distance, the longer the time.

if the distance is further increased between observer and observee, then the light signal becomes further delayed as well, simply because it has further to travel from the emission point to the detection point.

at relativistic speeds (which produce great distances) the delay can become substantial.

nbesp: this is the reason why the following exercise in "spacetime paradox" can occur...and also why it takes a particular formularisation involving time.

************************************************** ******
in the twins paradox, one twin is stationary and the other travels away at a relativistic speed.

the observer (for this example) is the stationary twin, who observes the travelling twin.
and to actually do this, the observer must receive data from the observee...which again is provided via the "light signal" (the rarely mentioned mechanism for the act of observance).

so what is the natural product of this scenario?


due to the increasing distance between the twins (approaching several light years over time)...the light signal sent from the travelling twin becomes increasingly delayed...simply because it is emitted at increasingly further distances and therefore takes "longer and longer" to travel to the stationary twin, as time goes by.

....so eventually the stationary twin can find himself receiving data that is years out of date....and therefore be able to experience a paradox involving time.

in the twins paradox this is applied to the concept of age difference displayed by the 2 sets of data held by the observer..ie: his own age and the age of the travelling twin seen in the received data.

the data conflicts of course...the travelling twin looks like he has aged less than the stationary twin....but this is just because the data is old....so is this acknowledged?

no.
************************************************** ******
the observer and data are bundled together under the term "reference frame"...SR predisposes our decision processes to accept any reference frame in the exercise (with whatever data it holds) as valid...so the fact that the data held by the observer is old, is forgotten...and that data is plugged straight into spacetime theory immediately causing an aberrant space-timeline (projected for the travelling twin...by the stationary twin).

the same conditions (and pre-disposition) also relate to the travelling twin, resulting in the same product type.
************************************************** ******
************************************************** ******
the pre-disposition relates back to SR

SR is based on the "inertial reference frame" (IRF).
the aspect of the IRF that makes it "special" is the aquisition of a state of uncertainty.

uncertainty as to time/place/velocity etc relative to other IRFs.

therefore in this state...all IRFs may seem valid...but this is a very special state, that can only be achieved if there are no clues to help you out of the predicament.

in time dilation we do have clues....we know the signal has been delayed and we know the reason why....just like we know that the sun's image is really 8 minutes old...and precisely why it is "observed to be that way".

we do not have to suspend reason and demand illusions to be temporal facts....just like we don't demand that the true age of the sun is exactly the age we observe it to be.

************************************************** *********************
************************************************** *********************
both time dilation and lorentzian contractions/rotations are dependent on travel time of light...from observee to observer.
these exercises cannot function without these parameters.


time dilation is the result of imposing out of date data upon the universe

lorentzian contractions are the result of imposing 2d motion blur upon the universe
lorentzian rotations are the result of imposing 3d motion/fov distortions upon the universe


they are all observer based illusions that are allowed to bypass reality checks and run amok on reality.

************************************************** *********************
************************************************** *********************













************************************************** *********************
************************************************** *********************
also...since time dilation and lorentzian contractions/rotations are solely observer based illusions...they therefore cannot be measured in-situ.

any variance in rates of eg: atomic clocks flown on planes in comparison to stationary clocks...is a separate physical process totally unrelated to time dilation.

combining this effect with time dilation only confuses the issue...generating an inappropriately derived "proof"....and promulgating an incorrect belief that time dilation produces real physical alterations.

it does not...and cannot. (Tim in fact stressed this point in the other thread too).

************************************************** *********************
************************************************** *********************
the same for muons.

muon half-lifes only last for 2.2 microseconds when the muons are kept at rest or at a very low speed.

muons travelling at relativistic speeds in an accelerator ring (or through the atmosphere) last a lot longer.


http://www.er.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/N...IN_PARADOX.htm



"At rest, or moving very slowly compared with the speed of light, the muon decays into an electron and two other particles, known as neutrinos, typically in 2.2 microseconds."

how far might these types of muons travel then?
"2.2 microseconds multiplied by 300,000 km/second = 0.66 km"

(nb: the above is a quote from the article...but it implies a conflicting situation of having a muon "at rest", yet travelling at speed c so we can measure it's travel distance vs halflife...this is really a fantasy extrapolation applied to an unnatural muon state (ie: kept at rest) and is also the root of the incorrect prescription that muons need time dilation to travel through our atmosphere)


"Muons are created in the upper atmosphere, roughly 10 kilometers above the surface of the Earth, when cosmic rays collide with the atoms in the atmosphere. Muons can subsequently be detected at the surface of the Earth, or even as much as 1 kilometer below the surface."

"Muons can be produced in the laboratory through the same types of collision as take place in the upper atmosphere. Because they are charged, we can steer them into circular storage rings, and keep them going round and round at speeds exceedingly close to the speed of light, say 0.995 c. In experiments at laboratories in both Europe and the United States, such muons have been found to survive typically for 30 times the 2.2 microsecond lifetime before decaying"

************************************************** ****

muons need to travel at least 11 kms to get from the atmosphere to 1km below the surface of the earth...is this possible?

30 * 0.66km = 19.8km

yes...when created and/or maintained in their natural state (travelling at velocities close to c) their lifetimes are longer...so they can get from the atmosphere to the earth with kms to spare.

************************************************** **
one set of data points to a halflife of 2.2 microseconds for muons (when at rest or low speeds).

2 sets of data point to a halflife of upwards of 66 microseconds for muons (when travelling at relativistic speeds in an accelerator ring..or through the atmosphere).

muons therefore do not appear to require time dilation to travel from the atmosphere to the earth.



even if time dilation were applied (to an "at rest" type muon...allowed to travel at c....but retaining it's 2.2 microsecond life), the observer would still only see the muon travel 0.66km...but take upwards of 66 microseconds to do it.

and really...to even be able to achieve this as a "time stretching" would require the muon to travel away from the observer...otherwise there can be no paradoxical "stretching of time", which is reliant on the "light travel time to the observer" getting longer...a parameter that is directly effected by "distance".

muons approaching the observer would be time-condensed and have shorter lives...or "age faster"...just like a travelling twin on the return leg of his relativistic trip...seems to the observer.

for time dilation to come anywhere near being an explanation for why muons can travel from the atmosphere to the ground would first require an observer sitting up in the atmosphere directly above the creation point of the muon...so they can watch it travel directly away from them and towards the earth....and still it wouldn't work because the muon will still only travel 0.66km....regardless of how long it seems to take for the observer.

************************************************** *******************
************************************************** *******************

another point in regards to this business of muons needing time dilation to reach earth.

where are all the observers that are required to achieve this?

who is watching this illusion?

[paraphrase]if a muon is created in the atmosphere and there is no observer to time dilate it..does it still not reach the earth?[/paraphrase]