From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 01:34:54 MDT
Louis Newstrom:
I think the twin paradox is "which one is slower".
What is the clock paradox?
The clock paradox was advanced by Herbert Dingle (1957),
under the logical form of a syllogism.
1 - According to the postulate of relativity, if two clocks
separate and re-unite, there is no observable phenomenon
which may show, in an absolute sense, that one, rather than
the other, has moved.
2 - If, on re-union, one clock were retarded by a quantity
depending on their relative motion, and the other not,
that phenomenon would show that the first has moved
and the second did not.
3 - Hence,* if the postulate of relativity is true*, the clocks
must be retarded equally, or not at all. In either case, their
readings will agree, on re-union, if they agreed at separation.
Of course experiments do show asymmetrical effects. So many
authors (i.e. Selleri) think that the postulate of relativity is not
true. (But also Bohm, Hardy, Percival, and many more, thought
there is a - cosmic - preferred reference frame).
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ERRORSVF.htm
As you can see the clock paradox is nothing but the twin effect,
plus a symmetry, plus some logical statement.
And yes, sometimes the twin effect ("paradox") is the same, as in:
- Peter would be dead and Paul alive, on the one hand;
- while Paul would be dead and Peter alive, on the other hand;
by Lovejoy (1931).
http://www.weburbia.com/physics/twin_paradox.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST