Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #18179

Re: C language paradox

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/03/2012 04:23 PM, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> On 2/29/2012 1:39 PM, Scott Fluhrer wrote:
>> "James Kuyper"<jameskuyper@verizon.net>  wrote in message
>> news:jil51r$m86$1@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Re: "anyway": strictly speaking, no pair of human twins have had
>>> sufficiently large differences in their travelling speeds to produce a
>>> detectable effect.
> 
> I suppose that we need more identical twins in the astronaut program.
> 
>>> However, for pairs of identical sub-atomic particles,
>>> the experiment has been conducted and did produce results matching the
>>> theory, rather than "common sense". Particles which naturally decay into
>>> smaller particles take much longer to do so when accelerated to
>>> relativistic velocities. It's difficult to accelerate anything much
>>> larger than an entire molecule to high enough speeds to make the effect
>>> measurable.
> 
> What about GPS satellites?  I think they are bit bit "larger than an entire 
> molecule".  :-)

I guess I have to explain in a little more detail. I'm keeping in mind a
misinterpretation of special relativity that I've run into several
times, in various forms. It does not deny that clocks run at different
rates in frames of reference that are accelerated relative to each
other, but claims that this is somehow distinct from the actual passage
of time, which continues at the same rate regardless of how fast the
clocks tick. This implies, in particular, that people will actually be
able to perceive that they are in an rapidly moving frame of reference,
by observing physical processes (other than their own aging, which is
"somehow" not a physical process). Implicit in this concept is the
existence of a preferred frame of reference in which the clocks click at
the fastest possible rate - the "rest frame" of the entire universe, so
to speak.

The net result is that, according to this interpretation, the twin who
was accelerated to high velocity relative to Earth, accelerated again to
reverse his velocity relative to Earth, and accelerated again to match
his velocity with Earth's at the same time that he returns to Earth,
will indeed see his clocks measuring out a smaller amount of time than
the twin who stayed on Earth. However, both twins will have aged by
precisely the same amount.

Feel free to point out the logical inconsistencies of this point of
view; there are too many to easily count. It is, however, the point of
view that I tend to think of as the opposition who needs to be convinced
in any twin-paradox discussion.

No matter how many successful measurements you make of time-dilation
using high precision clocks, they won't refute this interpretation. It's
"just" a change in the clock speed, not an actual change in the rate of
passage of time. What's needed is a biological system actually aging at
a noticeably slower rate, and systems that are actually subject to aging
tend to be vary large - there's no such thing as "old age" for a
bacterium. It would be very difficult to accelerate such organisms up to
velocities high enough to show significant differences in the actual
rate of aging.

However, I feel that there's a certain symbolic similarity between the
spontaneous decay of unstable particles (such as neutrons), and the
death of a human being. That this decay occurs less rapidly for rapidly
moving particles that for slower moving ones seems, to me, to more
directly attack the misinterpretation that I've described, than the fact
that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly. I suppose that I'm probably
being optimistic about the openness of those people to accepting
relevant evidence.
-- 
James Kuyper

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C language paradox pembed2012 <once@was.enough.invalid> - 2012-02-28 21:33 +0000
  Re: C language paradox Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-02-28 21:41 +0000
  Re: C language paradox Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 10:44 +1300
  Re: C language paradox Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-02-28 16:51 -0500
  Re: C language paradox Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-02-28 22:16 +0000
    Re: C language paradox Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 01:34 -0800
      Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-29 07:18 -0500
        Re: C language paradox "Scott Fluhrer" <sfluhrer@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-02-29 13:39 -0500
          Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-03 16:23 -0500
            Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-03-03 19:47 -0500
              Re: C language paradox Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-03 18:05 -0800
                Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-05 15:41 -0500
                Re: C language paradox Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-04-14 00:26 -0500
  Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-28 17:38 -0500
    Re: C language paradox Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2012-02-28 18:52 -0600
      Re: C language paradox James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-02-28 22:14 -0500
  Re: C language paradox James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-02-28 15:08 -0800
    Re: C language paradox "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-29 03:42 +0100
    Re: C language paradox Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-02-29 01:37 -0800
      Re: C language paradox jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-03 16:17 -0800
        Re: C language paradox nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com - 2012-03-04 02:54 -0800
          Re: C language paradox "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-03-04 11:43 +0000
          Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-04 04:01 -0800
            Re: C language paradox Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-04 14:34 +0100
        Re: C language paradox Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-03-04 17:01 +0000
          Re: C language paradox Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-03-05 15:45 -0500
  Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-02-28 17:45 -0800
    Re: C language paradox army1987 <army1987@ask-for-it.invalid> - 2012-03-05 10:42 +0000
      Re: C language paradox army1987 <army1987@ask-for-it.invalid> - 2012-03-05 10:48 +0000
        Re: C language paradox Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-03-05 09:35 -0800
          Re: C language paradox 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-04-16 13:01 -0700
      Re: C language paradox China Blue Water Navy <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-05 04:24 -0800
      Re: C language paradox Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-03-05 07:49 -0500
  Re: C language paradox "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-02-29 03:42 +0100
  Re: C language paradox Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-02-28 21:46 -0500

csiph-web