From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 14:10:04 MDT
Louis Newstrom:
> First, relativity says that if two clocks are moving with respect to
> each other, each will perceive the other as running slower.
Ok. The "clock paradox", which is different from the "twin paradox",
arose because Dingle's syllogism is difficult to be solved in SR (even
Einstein, as far as I know, gave up, and many authors think
that the relativity postulate is wrong, in this situation). But there are,
of course, many experiments which show the effects! ["Special Relativity
and its Experimental Foundation" by Yuan Zhong Zhang, World
Scientific (1996)].
> Although this is always mentioned in the set-up of the "paradox" it has
> no effect. When the two clocks synchronize their velocities, as they
> do when they meet again, they perceive each other as running normally,
> once more. This effect makes no prediction as to which clock should
> have "lost time".
Ok
> Second, relativity says that an accellerating clock (whether changing
> to a faster speed, or changing to a slower speed) will "lose time".
> Although position is relative, and velocity is relative, accelleration
> is not.
Ok, but the effect (clock slower) does not depend on acceleration or
deceleratiion. It is simple to show it. Imagine the same clock, having
the same acceleration and deceleration, but having a much longer trip,
say the double, with the same velocity. It is possible to show that the
clock is much slower (the double). So the effect (in SR) depends on
the velocity and not on the acceleration or deceleration.
- G. Builder, Austral. Journ. Phys, 11, p. 279, p. 457, (1958)
(But see also http://www.weburbia.com/physics/clock.html )
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:22 MST