# Special Relativity Paradox

16 replies to this topic

### #1 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 27 November 2008 - 08:00 PM

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?

### #2 EWright

EWright

Understanding

• Members
• 667 posts

Posted 27 November 2008 - 09:14 PM

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

### #3 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• Administrators
• 8034 posts

Posted 27 November 2008 - 10:36 PM

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.

### #4 Janus

Janus

Understanding

• Members
• 407 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 10:58 AM

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.

### #5 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 12:01 PM

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.

### #6 Janus

Janus

Understanding

• Members
• 407 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 03:01 PM

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.

### #7 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 28 November 2008 - 09:13 PM

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.

### #8 Janus

Janus

Understanding

• Members
• 407 posts

Posted 29 November 2008 - 12:25 PM

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.

### #9 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• Administrators
• 8034 posts

Posted 29 November 2008 - 01:07 PM

… 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.

-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.

… 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.

### #10 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 29 November 2008 - 06:02 PM

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.

### #11 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:29 AM

Special relativity has three relationships one for time, distance and mass. The mass aspect is not often included but can resolve the paradox because it allows an energy balance.

What we have is the solar system normalized to zero energy. We add net energy to the moving reference. We don't add it to the earth or sun. GR distortions in space-time are due to mass. A similar affect occurs with SR with the increase in relativistic mass creating real changes in space-time for that reference. The moving reference experiences a real affect that alters its time in proportion to its energy/relativistic mass. The rest of the universe sees no change in itself since we didn't add enough energy for relativistic mass.

Say the time dilation is one hour. My stomach has always worked like a clock that grumbles at 12 noon for lunch. Because of the time dilation of my body, my stomach will now grumble at 1 PM earth time. If I look at my own clock it says 12 noon, right on schedule. But the earth clock appears to be running faster. If I go into isolation for now on my stomach will grumble at 1PM earth time because my entire system has been time dilated 1 hour because of that experience where I had my relativistic mass increased.

### #12 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 01:04 PM

Right.

One thing I mentioned before in one of these kinds of posts is that, if the earth clock speeds up, then so would the rotation of the earth, and the actions upon its surface. ie. Trucks driving around at 300mph which would appear to break the laws of physics.

So according to the guy in space, earth is moving faster in time and/or lost mass.

I believe the response I got is that the earth will not rotate faster and orbit the sun faster relative to the space traveling guy. This confused me.

Likewise, the man in space is observed to move slower and have more mass.

### #13 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

Creating

• Banned
• 3058 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 01:41 PM

One way to look at it is time dilation is similar to a deep freeze for time. We chill or freeze food to make it last longer. We need to add energy as velocity to make this SR time chiller or freezer. If I put you in liquid nitrogen for one hour, and then thawed you, your biological clock will be one hour slower due to time preservation. The room is still aging at the same rate due to lack of time preservation. When you thaw it looks like the room sped up to the future. This is time dilation disorientation. The reality is you were in a time freezer for one hour, due to energy. The rest of the room did not have this energy and maintained normal time.
• arkain101 likes this

### #14 xersan

xersan

Questioning

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 12 December 2008 - 02:28 AM

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

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

Your performing will be moved to "strange claims"

You are not allowed to say against SR. You will be respected, if you express admiration, adoration.

Why don't you perceive the impressive "time-travel" like others? If you want to find the innocent reality, you must use the light of science for only confirming the scientific idols and for limited areas. The science must serve for our psychic ergonomics. The science must use the dogmatic blinkers, if it wants to advance.

Illusionists want the audiences are be facile/compliant. You are not compliant. And we will not examine your claims. We are closed for oppositions and new ideas. We like mystic fictions and we want to protect them for our psychic ergonomics. You would be lonely with your sharp-wit.

Human does not want to perceive and accept the things which he doesn't like; he is very successful at this way. We never allow to think about like yours claims; because we don't like. We like mystic submissions by scientific costume.

If you want to share your scientific ideas about SR, you must find a real scientific kitchen. It is impossible to share with blinkered brains today. Perhaps, after a 100 years too. You are at a position like Galileo (We have the powerful proofs about the sun turns around the earth and we see it clearly; even we never hear you).

NOTE: If you insist on sharing you must choose the member who knows the theory perfectly (like Einstein) . You need for discussing a staff or academician from the kitchen of science. Here we are on the table only to eat on the dish. We may kick the ball to ouside. Please never say to us like "The earth turns around the sun". We have no paradox. We have resistances for these alternative ideas. We are decide to not examine your claims.

280

### #15 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 12 December 2008 - 08:17 PM

One way to look at it is time dilation is similar to a deep freeze for time. We chill or freeze food to make it last longer. We need to add energy as velocity to make this SR time chiller or freezer. If I put you in liquid nitrogen for one hour, and then thawed you, your biological clock will be one hour slower due to time preservation. The room is still aging at the same rate due to lack of time preservation. When you thaw it looks like the room sped up to the future. This is time dilation disorientation. The reality is you were in a time freezer for one hour, due to energy. The rest of the room did not have this energy and maintained normal time.

I understand the analogy you are trying to convey, however, as you said it is "one way" to look at time dilation (SR Theory).

The way I am looking at SR theory is through mathematical representation, and it appears that no matter what way I look at it, some kind of an issue surfaces.

I recently started to put together a clear and concise set of examples that should demonstrate the issues I have. My intentions are not to try and disprove SR, it may be that there is an explaination that exists that I have not been exposed to.

xersan:
Your performing will be moved to "strange claims"

You are not allowed to say against SR. You will be respected, if you express admiration, adoration.

This was a bit difficult to read and understand. However, I think I do understand your point. That is, at times it can be difficult to have discussion about SR.

### #16 arkain101

arkain101

Creating

• Members
• 1931 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:03 PM

I believe I ended up answering my own question some time ago, and thought I would sum it up to kind of conclude this threads purpose.

I use a different example and shorten it up.

We have two persons. One on earth. One in a ship (that is about to go on a high speed return trip journey through the cosmos).

The trip is expected to take 4 years. Each person is planning on bouncing a ball once every year (keep in mind: prior to the trip using the concept of time according to being on earth).

-The person take off in the ship, and observed from the earth the person on the ship is only observed to bounce the ball twice.

-Observed from the ship; the person on the earth bounces the ball 4 times.

So why did the plan go astray?

When the person on the ship started to reach relativistic speeds he realized the trip took a lot less time than expected and it was only possible to bounce the ball twice according to his onboard clocks and timers.

Simple. Correct?
• modest likes this

### #17 CraigD

CraigD

Creating

• Administrators
• 8034 posts

Posted 09 January 2009 - 09:48 AM

When the person on the ship started to reach relativistic speeds he realized the trip took a lot less time than expected and it was only possible to bounce the ball twice according to his onboard clocks and timers.

Simple. Correct?

That’s a pretty good summary of what the person on the ship experiences.

Another way to put it is that, when the person on the ship started to reach relativistic speeds, he realized the trip was a lot shorter distance than it was when he started. For instance, if he and everybody else measured the distance from Earth to his turnaround point – say using a sensitive parallax optical rangefinder – as 1 lightyear, and the ship quickly accelerates to 0.5 c, upon reaching that speed, the person on the ship using the same rangefinder would measure the distance as $\sqrt{1-0.5^2} \dot= 0.866$ lightyears. This length contraction occurs only in the direction of travel: formerly circular-appearing objects, such as the disks of planets and stars, would appear elliptical.