The Twins Paradox and the Experience of Time

[CJames]

This is just totally wrong. Your (and Janus') position, is that both observers see an 80 minute game at the same rate (literally).

At the same rate? Where did this come from. Let's try this again. The game is one frame of reference. One observer is in motion with respect to that reference frame. Within the observer's reference frame, time is running normal. Outside his/her reference frame time is wacked. From the perspective of the observer, the game is running faster/slower than he/she would expect it to be. But the observer does not miss any part of the game. It simply seems to take place in less/more time. The watches of the players are moving faster/slower than his/hers. His/her time feels entirely normal, but the games seems to be wrong. Does it make sense yet?

 

[CJames]

How's it going LW?

Before getting back to "experience" of relativity, let's see if you agree that actual, physical differences result between someone accelerating and someone zooming along at a (relatively) constant rate.

Yes, there are actual, physical differences. Ultimately, when the twins meet again, one of them will have aged more, and one will have aged less.

When the traveling twin returns home however, 35 more years have passed there than on his ship. I am not saying that either frame of reference is the "true" one, but something different has occurred in each situation because the traveling twin and his spaceship have aged at 1/8th the rate that Earth and its inhabitants have. I mean, each twin is going to notice that!

I like how you worded that, because it fits quite perfectly. Yes, something is different. The thing is, that "something" is different depending on which reference frame you use! Crazy isn't it? True though. I'm not sure you understand this yet, but there is more to SR than time dilation. There is also length contraction, which plays a big part. Both reference frames will agree on the final results, they disagree on the means. The rocket-twin will notice that the surrounding universe, traveling at near lightspeed compared to the rocket's reference frame, is contracted in length. He therefore doesn't believe he traveled as far as the other twin believes he did.

Each twin will disagree. One twin finds that the other's measurements say something traveled half as far, with clocks running twice as slow. The other will say something traveled twice as far, with clocks running half the speed of the other. But they agree on the result.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by CJames
How's it going LW?

It's going (relative to my frame of reference of course).

Originally posted by CJames
HYes, there are actual, physical differences. Ultimately, when the twins meet again, one of them will have aged more, and one will have aged less. I like how you worded that, because it fits quite perfectly. Yes, something is different. The thing is, that "something" is different depending on which reference frame you use! Crazy isn't it?

Yes, it can be mindboggling, but I do understand this. Neither twin is "right' in his interpretation of events because all events are perfectly consistent within each twin's frame of reference.

Originally posted by CJames
True though. I'm not sure you understand this yet, but there is more to SR than time dilation. There is also length contraction, which plays a big part. . . . One twin finds that the other's measurements say something traveled half as far, with clocks running twice as slow. The other will say something traveled twice as far, with clocks running half the speed of the other. But they agree on the result.

I understand this too, and actually it supports my notion that acceleration is constricting the traveling twin's entire frame of reference relative to the Earth twin.

So, now that we agree that the actual physical rate of change differs in each frame of reference, let's return to the theme of this post.

Will the twin raised at Earth's rate of change notice it when his rate of change is altered by acceleration? I refer you back to my "computer awareness" analogy as the basis of my query.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This is just totally wrong. Your (and Janus') position, is that both observers see an 80 minute game at the same rate (literally). One brother flies-off into space, then experiences time to slow-down (relatively) to his brother on Earth. So; would you please explain how this spacetwin has had this tangible-experience of time-distortion if he has seen as much of 'the game' as his brother, when they meet-up?

You still haven't gotten the concepts of Relativity correct, Neither twin experiences time or space dilation, he measures it as happening to the other twin.

Your post contains so many intertwined misconceptions, It would take much more time that I have to correct them all. Add to this that you show no inclination towards wanting to unlearn your misconceptions, and its more work than it worth.

So Instead, let's simpilfy things by dealing with one aspect of Relativity at a time. And if you can come to grips with it, then maybe we can proceed further.

Instead of a twin traveling at high relative velocity, let's just put them in different gravity potentials. ( One in a valley and one on a mountain top) This way we only have to deal one Relativistic effect rather than many. And don't have to deal with the complication of changing distances btween the twins.

According to Relativity, the time rate at the top of the mountain runs faster than at the bottom of the valley.

The mountain twin's time runs faster, (His clock runs faster, he breathes faster, his heart pumps faster and his thought processes run faster.) Since everything on the mountain top shares the same time rate, as he looks around him everything looks normal.

But this only applys to those things within his frame, (Sharing the same or nearly the same Gravity potential as himself) not to things outside of this frame!

If he looks at something at Sea level (or at anything else at a different gravity potential wrt to himself) , he will not see the clocks run or events take place at a rate that matches his own.

If he watches a game taking place at Sea level the game will take a longer amount of time to play out for him than it does for someone on the field. For him events on the field will take place at a slower rate because it time runs slower at lower gravity potentials than his own.
But since anyone in the stadium is in the same frame as the game, they will share the same time rate as the game. (If the game take 80 min to play on the field, These spectators will see it take 80 min also , Even though the mountain twin sees it as taking a longer time. (Actually, From the Mountain Twin's frame, it isn't that his time rate is altered by his high altitude, but that the stadiums time rate is altered by its lower alitude)

From the valley twin's frame, the game will appear to run faster. (The stadium is at a higher altitude than the valley twin's frame. ) Again, the Valley twin looking around at things sharing his same altitude will see them behaving at a normal time rate.

If the mountain twin looks at the valley twin he will see the valley twin's time as moving even slower that the stadium's. And if the valley twin looks at the mountain twin he will see the mountain twin's time rate as running even faster than the stadium.

How fast the game "really" played out depends on from which frame it was measured.

The same goes for another time period, that between sunrises. If over any given period you were to ask the Mountain twin, the Valley twin and someone in the stadium how many sunsets they've seen, they would all agree, even though they would'n't agree to how much time has passed over the period. Each would just measure the time between sunsets as taking different amounts of time.

[/b]
I promise you that your argument will not stand-up to logic. If the spacetwin has experienced a 'normal 8o minutes' of the game at the same rate as his brother, then it is impossible for them to have experienced time & space differently. I promise you. If you argue against this fact, then you are exhibiting a total ineptitude to logic. [/B]

The only thing this exhibits is your ineptitude at understanding the concepts of Relativity, even after they have been explained to you many times, and in many ways.

But then it is not to your advantage to understand Relativity, you then might discover that you've built a 'house of cards'

The game only takes '80 mins' when measured from the same frame as the game. As measured from other frames it will take different times to play out. We've already said that the game will take different times to play out as measured from different frames. That same 80 mins as measured from within the frame of the game, might be measured as 160 min from a different frame.

What is so hard about all this that you can't see it?

 

[Lifegazer]

LWS...
Why are you so-interested (all of a sudden), in talking about this? Are you going-down the same road as I tried to go-down? To what ends?
Once more, you have confused me. Given your responses to our previous discussions, I fail to see what you, personally, are trying to prove. Do you not realize that a discussion upon these lines (by you) is an enforcement of my own personal philosophy? And if you do realize that, then has your philosophy changed?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Janus
You still haven't gotten the concepts of Relativity correct, Neither twin experiences time or space dilation, he measures it as happening to the other twin.

What a crock. He 'measures' nothing about the time of the other twin. He only experiences the differences when we get them 'on the same seat'.
That's a fact. Don't lie to this forum (and since you're in a position of respected-authority, you should be doing your utmost to be 'responsible' here). The spacetwin experiences his reality. He does not experience/measure the reality of other observers. At least; not until he experiences the different experiences of those observers (when he sits on the same seat as those observers). The spacetwin doesn't measure the experiences of other observers - he measures his own experiences. That is a fact upon which Relativity hinges.

Your post contains so many intertwined misconceptions, It would take much more time that I have to correct them all.

Don't make a comment like that. It's provocatively unsupported.

Add to this that you show no inclination towards wanting to unlearn your misconceptions, and its more work than it worth.

You won't budge; will you? I can just 'sense' it. You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work. I somehow sense that you are the biggest materialist in the whole 'plot'. You have certainly given me no indication that you have ever taken me seriously. No matter what I say.
If it is your intention that I shall become bored of this pursuit, then you are probably correct. However, for the time-being, I will challenge established-philosophies until you kick me out of these forums and thereby admit that you are defending a materialistic-bias. You certainly are not defending science here. You are defending your own philosophy: ~Materialism~.
You have no moral right to kick me out of a philosophy-forum for attacking a specific philosophy. Please contemplate that before you kick me out. Therefore; please don't kick me out (as I love posting here). But I won't change my philosophy. Not unless you can prove its unreasonable. To-date, you have not.
I don't just challenge you with a philosophical-dilemma here. I challenge you with a moral dilemma. Is materialism big-enough to kill all other challenges with scorn? I think not. Therefore, think hard before deciding what you shall do. The truth is bigger than a couple of egos.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What a crock. He 'measures' nothing about the time of the other twin. He only experiences the differences when we get them 'on the same seat'.
That's a fact. Don't lie to this forum (and since you're in a position of respected-authority, you should be doing your utmost to be 'responsible' here). The spacetwin experiences his reality. He does not experience/measure the reality of other observers. At least; not until he experiences the different experiences of those observers (when he sits on the same seat as those observers). The spacetwin doesn't measure the experiences of other observers - he measures his own experiences. That is a fact upon which Relativity hinges.

Earth twin points his telescope at Earth. And measures how much time passes on his brothers clock as compared to his. His brother's clock is seen to be running slower than his. Thus he Measures time as running slower on his brother's ship

Space twin does a close fly by of the Earth, as he does so, Earth twin uses a sextant to measure the Length of a meter stick on Space twin's ship. he finds that it is shorter than 1 meter. He measures length contraction as happening to his brother's ship.

Do we have to give you a lesson on what Measurement means Also?

It appears that the only one practicing deception here is you; By maintaining the pretense that you understand a Subject (Relativity) which you clearily do not.

Your saying "That is a fact" when it come to Relativity bears no weight because you don't understand the "facts" of Relativity.

Don't make a comment like that. It's provocatively unsupported.

It is amply supported by your own statements which misrepresent Relativity.

You won't budge; will you? I can just 'sense' it. You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work.

My post was entirely aimed at your misconceptions of Relativity
(which I very carefully tried to correct in the rest of the post) and not your Philosophy.

But since you bring it up.

If you read Tom's and Ahrkon's comments closely, they also said that such compatabilty doesn't mean anything, since there are other valid viewpoints that are just as compatible.

Just like pure Solipsism is compatible with Relativity.( The idea that I am the only reality and that everything else (you included) is just an illusion.)

Or materialism for that fact.

That compatibilty cannot be used to support any of these viewpoints over the others.

 

[ahrkron]

LG,

You are being extremely unreasonable here. Janus is providing clear explanations of relativistic effects. He is definitely not lying to the forum.

You, on the other hand, have not understood those explanations and, knowingly or not, are presenting your confused ideas about it as logical necessities. They are not, and I find it upsetting that you push so hard from them, being the case that you know that you are not too clear on the meaning of relativity and Lorentz transformations.

Also, when you say that

You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work.

you are being deceitful. Both Tom and I mentioned that your ideas are UNTESTABLE, and hence UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to any meaningful discussion.

 

[CJames]

Lifegazer, I thought you understood that the observer is always at rest in his own reference frame and that everything within that reference frame appears normal. It is when he measures what's going on in somebody else's reference frame and compares his results with the measurements made within that reference frame that the discrepancies arise. I thought you understood that and I still think you do. For some reason, though, right now you just feel like being a martyr. That's how it appears to me, anyway. Maybe you just aren't reading Janus's posts closely enough, maybe they were worded to complicated. I'm not sure. All I can tell is that I see two people I thought understood at least the basic concepts of something, now arguing over its basic concepts. Frankly, I'm a little lost as to why this is even happening. You read a popular text on relativity. Maybe you need to go back to it.

 

[Lifegazer]

If the spacetwin can see/experience the fast-clock of his brother, or if the earthtwin can see/experience the slow-clock of his brother, then what you're saying is that each observer exists in his own unique bundle of time, and that a clock observed upon any other object which is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer will not mirror his own clock.
But how can the spacetwin have a 'normal' experience of time if the objects he is looking at (the universe) are all moving much-faster than he would expect?
If the observed-clock is the 'stadium clock' (the game clock, on earth), then the spacetwin will experience the 80 minute game happening in the course of less than 20 of his own minutes, for example. Clearly, all the players on the field of play are running about like Charlie-chaplin, in one of those old silent-movies. There's nothing 'normal' happening here, for the spacetwin. The universe (as observed/experienced by the spacetwin) is all moving several times faster than it would be experienced on Earth. That's the experience of the spacetwin.
So; what price 'normality'? What does it mean?

If the spacetwin observes 'the game' at the same rate as the earthtwin, and yet in less than 20 minutes, then he is not seeing a 'normal' game. He must be observing something which can only be compared to the images we see when we use the fast-forward button on our video-recorders.

It seems to me that there is a valid discussion to be had about the individual experience of relativity, whereby it can be shown that space & time are a function of the observer's own mind (how his mind sees those parameters of existence).

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If the spacetwin can see/experience the fast-clock of his brother, or if the earthtwin can see/experience the slow-clock of his brother, then what you're saying is that each observer exists in his own unique bundle of time, and that a clock observed upon any other object which is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer will not mirror his own clock.

Replace "observer" with "Frame of Reference" and "is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer" with "has a considerable relative velocity with respect to the frame of refernce", and that's about it.

But how can the spacetwin have a 'normal' experience of time if the objects he is looking at (the universe) are all moving much-faster than he would expect?

Everything that shares his frame of reference behaves normally. He shouldn't expect objects in other frames to follow the same pattern. You are trying to expand the use of the word 'normal' beyond what it means here.

If the observed-clock is the 'stadium clock' (the game clock, on earth), then the spacetwin will experience the 80 minute game happening in the course of less than 20 of his own minutes, for example. Clearly, all the players on the field of play are running about like Charlie-chaplin, in one of those old silent-movies. There's nothing 'normal' happening here, for the spacetwin. The universe (as observed/experienced by the spacetwin) is all moving several times faster than it would be experienced on Earth. That's the experience of the spacetwin.
So; what price 'normality'? What does it mean?

If the spacetwin observes 'the game' at the same rate as the earthtwin, and yet in less than 20 minutes, then he is not seeing a 'normal' game. He must be observing something which can only be compared to the images we see when we use the fast-forward button on our video-recorders.

Again, you are trying to use the word 'Normal' in a way that it is not meant. Normal is a relative term. It is not the absolute term you are trying to make it. When one says that an observer in a frame sees everything as normal, one means "within his own Frame of Reference" it is not meant to extend beyond his frame of reference like you are trying to make it do.

 

[Lifegazer]

I'm going to leave this discussion for others. I just want to apologise to you Janus for giving you grief, as we say over here, earlier. I was out of order. I'm sorry.

 

[N_Quire]

I find it sad when philosophy degenerates into a forum for debating pet and personal theories based on incorrect or incomplete versions of already established science. Philosophy then becomes like God & Religion, an anything-goes forum, where science can be debated even by those with no knowledge of science.

The philosophy forum thereby becomes a backdoor for non-scientists and those with little knowledge of science to sound off about theories and ideas they barely understand.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher. Many posters would be encouarged to go back and study the basics before launching their theories on the world. You can't just make up physics as you go along. In the philosophy forum, on the other hand, there are few standards and the forum suffers as a result.

I would like to thank the mentors for their patience throughout this relativity discussion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
LWS... Why are you so-interested (all of a sudden), in talking about this? Are you going-down the same road as I tried to go-down? To what ends?
Once more, you have confused me. Given your responses to our previous discussions, I fail to see what you, personally, are trying to prove. Do you not realize that a discussion upon these lines (by you) is an enforcement of my own personal philosophy? And if you do realize that, then has your philosophy changed?

I thought I would wait for your debate with Janus and others to die down before answered you. I want to try to explain where I think we agree and disagree, and hopefully get this thread back on track.

Where I sense we agree is that neither of us believe consciousness is entirely the result of material processes. In fact, I can say for myself personally that I know that it isn’t. You may remember some of the debate I’ve had with DT Strain and others where I’ve argued against the concept that all knowing can be empirically demonstrated. It is the philosophy of empirically-oriented materialism that wants to reduce and take everything apart, and sometimes claim if it doesn’t show up in laboratory experiments then it can’t exist. I joined this site specifically to challenge that philosophy, mainly because I’m getting a book ready for a publisher and needed feedback for my concepts. So far the people here have been immensely helpful, even the most crabby and uncompromising materialist types.

What my focus has mostly been at PF are materialist claims I feel are premature given the evidence we have (like spontaneous chemogenisis), and to challenge physical theories of, or involving, consciousness. The latter is the theme of this thread. I don’t think materialist theories can automatically be extended to consciousness, particularly the basic materialist concept that the brain (more or less) generates consciousness. I do believe the CN and brain draw in “something” (potentiality?) and then organizes its undifferentiated nature for thinking, memory, etc., but the “something” beneath all that organization retains its original nature.

As you know, I think when materialist concepts are extended into the realm of consciousness, it seems every time the undifferentiated, unified, holistic aspect is overlooked. Point that out and you might be told such ideas about consciousness have been “dismissed” (by materialist advocates of course), along with notions of the “observer” in consciousness, Descartes, the phenomenon of enlightenment, God and anything else which can’t be explained by, or interferes with, materialist philosophy. I believe it is wrong to ignore or dismiss what can’t be explained by one’s philosophy, and so I want to challenge that.

But just as I think it’s incorrect to automaticallyextend physical concepts to consciousness, so too do I worry about interpreting physical things in a consciousness or spiritual context. I think if there is the sort of consciousness I’ve suggested, or something spiritual, it operates by non-physical principles (though not supernaturally). I am not suggesting duality really, because I see them both as offspring of “potentiality”: but the realms are so differentiated that what defines “physical” functions by its own strict rules, as does the non-physical (even if at the level of “potentiality” they are identical).

So, here seems to be where our philosophies collide because you want to mix principles of physical and non-physical together, and I don’t think it can be done. What happens, whether materialists do it or non-materialists do it, is that neither set of principles is understood. I think you prove physical things through physical principles, and you prove non-material things through . . . well, you know. Further, even the methods of “proof” are different. Empiricism requires sense experience to verify; and then results can be demonstrated to others objectively. But sense experience doesn’t work with immateriality, and one cannot “objectify” one’s personal experience. So “proof” ends up being what each person experiences and proves to themselves alone. This is the second area where we disagree, because I believe you’ve said that you think the realities of immateriality can be proven through reason.

So let’s get back to the theme of this thread for a minute. My point was to isolate conscious experience in the relativity experiment. If you read the posts by those explaining relativity, you can tell they’ve assumed the conscious experience of the traveling twin will find everything “normal” because all physical measurements indicate that. However, the traveling twin had been raised on Earth, say for thirty years, and that rate of time he’d experienced for thirty years was his norm. But while traveling his rate of time was different than how he’d been raised, 1/8th the rate (in my example). This is proven by the fact that upon returning the Earth twin had aged 35 more years. It wasn’t just the clocks that were different, an actual real difference in aging had taken place.

My point is that if consciousness is only a product of physical processes, and because relativity is purely a physical phenomenon, then consciousness should adjust accordingly as rates of time or physical contraction fluctuate. We should indeed be unable to tell fluctuations are occurring because consciousness will “follow” the changes since everything, even consciousness, changes proportionally. However, if consciousness is not fundamentally physical, then it might not be fully subject to relativity effects. I tried to analogize what sort of physical independence consciousness might have with the following:

Say a computer is able to generate awareness intelligent as humans are right now. The computer lives in an entirely electronic world where every device it interacts with is powered by the same source; the computer shares the same power source too. On hot days when air conditioners around the county are straining generators, the power level of computer's shared power supply drops. Now it and everything connected to the power supply slows proportionately; plus, the computer's awareness slows too, and so notices absolutely nothing is different.

A neighboring intelligently-aware computer also lives entirely in an electronic world with lots of other electronic devices. All the devices share a common power source. However, this computer runs on its own generator, and so when air conditioners around the county slow down all the appliances around it, it notices differences in the performance of the appliances, even though its electronic measuring devices (running off the county’s power) indicate all is “normal.”

There is no way to prove any of this since such space travel is impossible now, and probably always will be. My point, however, was to challenge the automatic assumptions of the materialist view that the traveling twin, who takes off used to Earth’s rate of time (obviously if the traveling twin had not lived 30 years on Earth before traveling, then he wouldn’t have any comparison rate of time), will find everything “normal” just because physical measurements tell his senses it is so. I think it is very possible that behind his sense experience the twin’s feeling/intuitive experience will feel the indicated five years of space travel was the longest five years of his life.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by N_Quire
I find it sad when philosophy degenerates into a forum for debating pet and personal theories based on incorrect or incomplete versions of already established science. Philosophy then becomes like God & Religion, an anything-goes forum, where science can be debated even by those with no knowledge of science.

The philosophy forum thereby becomes a backdoor for non-scientists and those with little knowledge of science to sound off about theories and ideas they barely understand.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher. Many posters would be encouarged to go back and study the basics before launching their theories on the world. You can't just make up physics as you go along. In the philosophy forum, on the other hand, there are few standards and the forum suffers as a result.

I would like to thank the mentors for their patience throughout this relativity discussion.

It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

There is no way to prove any of this since such space travel is impossible now, and probably always will be. My point, however, was to challenge the automatic assumptions of the materialist view that the traveling twin, who takes off used to Earth’s rate of time (obviously if the traveling twin had not lived 30 years on Earth before traveling, then he wouldn’t have any comparison rate of time), will find everything “normal” just because physical measurements tell his senses it is so. I think it is very possible that behind his sense experience the twin’s feeling/intuitive experience will feel the indicated five years of space travel was the longest five years of his life.

Two points:
I still don't think you quite grasp what Relativity says on the subject. Any time difference between you and the other frame, are always due to what is happening to the other frame. There are no physical causes in your frame that you have to "adjust" to.

Second, even without space flight we have been able to do experiments on how we "sense" time.

As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour.

Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.

 

[BoulderHead]

As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour.

Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.

Very true, I have spent time in an isolation tank and it is a very interesting indeed. For anyone wishing to read more about this;
http://eccosys.jp/lilly/isolationx.html

I gambled at a Las Vegas casino a couple of times and found that it might be storming, sunny, or nighttime outside and you can't tell any difference. Leaving the casino after a 'spell' I walked outside into the daylight and become disoriented because it had been night when I had entered.
...of course losing your arse at the tables is rather disorienting too!

 

[David Kemp]

For what it’s worth the thread here is a question that I asked myself just a few days ago. I personally view that matter is not the ultimate reality but in fact emotion is, and that matter is in fact a construction in the same way the matrix in the movie Matrix is a mental construction. The purpose of the matrix in our case being to guide us in our quest to experience emotion, again emotion being the ultimate reality.
So in my opinion it is quite possible that the young twin experiences a slowing down of time just like some people report experiencing a slowing down of time when they are in a serious car accident or some other traumatic event. There is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting that consciousness is separate from matter. Quantum physics itself suggests that matter is not some independent machine with an objective reality.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Janus
Two points:
I still don't think you quite grasp what Relativity says on the subject. Any time difference between you and the other frame, are always due to what is happening to the other frame. There are no physical causes in your frame that you have to "adjust" to.

No, I didn't know that the standard way of evaluating things is to do it in relation to the "other" frame. But it makes sense for the purposes of physical measurement.

But it seems you are discounting the psychological effects of 30 years of Earth's rate of time on the now traveling twin. Time onboard is progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to. So I can see why physical factors are compared to the other frame, but past conditioning creates a "norm" for the traveling twin which I suggest he will notice.

Originally posted by Janus
Second, even without space flight we have been able to do experiments on how we "sense" time. As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour. Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

Good points. But the circumstances you cite are temporary and extreme alterations. A proper experiment wouldn't deprive someone of all sensory imput, or alter conditions too much from the norm because then you would not know what causes someone's perception.

With the traveling twin, he has years to get used to his life there, and he is not deprived of light or comforts or clocks, similar to his twin brother on Earth. With time to adjust to conditions (just as his twin has had time to do), and with other conditions relatively close to his brother's (like a Galactica-sized ship with gardens, companionship, interesting activities, etc.), then that would be the sort of test we need to judge his "feeling" of time.

Originally posted by Janus
It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.

I agree very much with this, except to say that while most people may be slaves, it isn't necessarily always true. In fact, one of the signs of a successfully self-actuating human is he/she is able to step outside or forestall physiological circumtstances and conditioning weaker persons more easily yield to.

One of my favorite examples is the Buddha who, no matter what one believes about enlightenment or meditation, exhibited impressive self restraint in order to realize something he apparently valued very highly. But even less-famous people alive today show these tendencies when they become dedicated to realizing or attaining a goal (Jerry Rice?).

So I agree with you about the masses, but I don't agree it has to be true for everyone. Also, I believe human potential has barely been seen.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by N_Quire
This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards are different. This discussion is out of scope for the physics forum. While I agree that any philosophical idea that is based on science should have the science right, the determination of the meaning and implications for that science does NOT and should not follow the scientific method. I think many times it's easier to claim someone doesn't understand the science then it is to enter the philosphical debate. Especially when the implications are unattractive to one's world view.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
No, I didn't know that the standard way of evaluating things is to do it in relation to the "other" frame. But it makes sense for the purposes of physical measurement.

But it seems you are discounting the psychological effects of 30 years of Earth's rate of time on the now traveling twin. Time onboard is progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to.

No, that's just it, Time isn't progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to, It is the other twin whose time rate changes, and this is true no matter which twin you are talking about.

 

[CJames]

LWS, you are arguing that the mind is not a material phenomina. I understand that. (I disagree, but that's not the point.) However, it doesn't alter the ideas behind relativity. From your perspective, the perspective of your mind, you are always at rest, and only other things will move. It is for this reason that at no time will you ever feel as though time is behaving abnormally between your body and your mind.

If you believe that the mind can alter time, that is your opinion, and I won't try to infringe on it, not here anyway, as long as you aren't trying to say it is an absolute proven truth. However, movement wouldn't be necessary in this case. The mind could simply alter time whenever it felt like it. (All powerful mind, I guess, according to you, like Budahs.)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Janus
No, that's just it, Time isn't progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to. It is the other twin whose time rate changes, and this is true no matter which twin you are talking about.

First, it must be that time is progressing at 1/8th the rate because as long as he stays on planet Earth, he ages at the same rate he always has. But if he takes that spaceship flight, then he will age at a different rate than those still on Earth. If it weren't for the actual aging difference between the two twins, then one could say time hadn't been altered, but only perception had. The meeting of the two twins proves time has progressed at a different rate for each twin.

Isn't the relativity technique of saying it is the other twin whose time rate changes based on the a priori assumption that the traveling twin's perception will be "normal" because every physical measurement in his frame of reference will confirm that? So the only way to tell something is different is to evaluate changes of another frame of reference in relation to one's own?

But I've suggested that while measurement may convince the senses and intellect all is "normal," because the traveling twin has lived 30 years at a different rate of time, some feeling part of him may notice that years are longer than they were on Earth.

 

[CJames]

LWS, I could email you a paper on special relativity I wrote for my physics class if you wish. It explains how it is possible for each twin to be at rest within his own reference frame while still having the surprise at the end where one twin ends up younger. Yes, it is explained physically, but that's not the point. If you are at rest, why should things feel different for you?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by CJames
LWS, you are arguing that the mind is not a material phenomina. I understand that. (I disagree, but that's not the point.) However, it doesn't alter the ideas behind relativity.

I am arguing that the mind is not necessarily material (I believe it isn't material, but I wouldn't try to assert that here). And I agree that irrespective of what I believe about mind, it doesn't alter the physical reality of relativity.

Originally posted by CJames
From your perspective, the perspective of your mind, you are always at rest, and only other things will move. It is for this reason that at no time will you ever feel as though time is behaving abnormally between your body and your mind.

I assume you mean for the purposes of talking about and making calculations for relativity. Because in my everyday life, I can tell you that I see lots of people and things that appear stationary as I run my tail off.

Originally posted by CJames
[BIf you believe that the mind can alter time, that is your opinion, and I won't try to infringe on it, not here anyway, as long as you aren't trying to say it is an absolute proven truth. However, movement wouldn't be necessary in this case. The mind could simply alter time whenever it felt like it. (All powerful mind, I guess, according to you, like Budahs.) [/B]

Noooooooooooo. I don't believe mind can alter anything except through natural processes. I am a firm believer in natural principles, and reject all supernatural suggestions.

What I am saying is that time is altered by acceleration or gravity. Anyone within the frame of reference of any rate of time cannot tell by physical measurement his situation has been altered from what he is used to. To me, that is the basic principle of relativity. Am I wrong?

However . . . if someone grew up within a certain rate of time, and then found himself in a different rate, I am suggesting some intuitive/visceral/feeling part of him might sense that. By measurement, no; by feeling, maybe. I am only trying to get hardcore materialists to admit to the "maybe."

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by CJames
[B. . . it is possible for each twin to be at rest within his own reference frame while still having the surprise at the end where one twin ends up younger. Yes, it is explained physically, but that's not the point. If you are at rest, why should things feel different for you? [/B]

Yes . . . that is the issue isn't it.

Your point is one of being able to evaluate change in your own milieu. Of course you cannot evaluate change if you compare everything to your own situation because it has all changed proportionately, whether faster or slower or more contracted or less contracted. Your frame of reference always appears constant (i.e., at rest) . . . but solely by measurement!

I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might).

 

[CJames]

What I am saying is that time is altered by acceleration or gravity. Anyone within the frame of reference of any rate of time cannot tell by physical measurement his situation has been altered from what he is used to. To me, that is the basic principle of relativity. Am I wrong?

You have a much stronger understanding of relativity than most people, and in layman's terms, you are more or less right. But...you're wrong. LOL. Yes, time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.

I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might).

Haha, well, I can't believe I'm saying this, but if for some reason your mind does stray from your body when your body accelerates, yes, of course your mind will actually sense that time is slowing down for your body. Because you would have left your mind on Earth, and it would therefore take upon the same reference frame as the Earth-twin. LOL, this is too amusing.

Of course, it seems to me that a non-material mind (which I don't believe exists) wouldn't necessarily exist within spacetime at all, and therefore wouldn't notice any effects made on spacetime.

By the way, please realize that I am being way more open-minded here than usual. I normally wouldn't even consider the possibility of a non-material mind. (Well technically I'm not a materialist either. It's just that I don't believe we can ever study anything that isn't material, so I don't consider it as being relevent.)

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes . . . that is the issue isn't it.



I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might).

I think you are misreading what I meant. I meant that the Consciousness has no unique sense of time of its own; That its sense of time is derived from its physical surroundings.

 

[Janus]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First, it must be that time is progressing at 1/8th the rate because as long as he stays on planet Earth, he ages at the same rate he always has. But if he takes that spaceship flight, then he will age at a different rate than those still on Earth. If it weren't for the actual aging difference between the two twins, then one could say time hadn't been altered, but only perception had. The meeting of the two twins proves time has progressed at a different rate for each twin.

The point is that you can not say which twin's timerate changed. From the view of the Earth twin, his brother ages less because time progressed slower for him during the entire trip.

From the view of the Space twin his brother's time rate progressed slowly for part of the time and very quickly for another part of the time.
And there is no reason to choose one Twin's interpretation over the other You can't say that one twin is seeing the "true" picture while the other is just seeing an illusion. Both are equally valid.

Isn't the relativity technique of saying it is the other twin whose time rate changes based on the a priori assumption that the traveling twin's perception will be "normal" because every physical measurement in his frame of reference will confirm that? So the only way to tell something is different is to evaluate changes of another frame of reference in relation to one's own?

No it is due to to the Principle of Relativity and the fact that there are no preferred frames of reference.

 

[N_Quire]

LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by N_Quire
LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

N_QUIRE

I would rather see you assume that people are here to learn and take the opportunity to correct the use of science being used. Perhaps you may be able to explain a concept that has not been successfully explained by others. This seems much more productive than your chosen approach. I applaud Janus and CJames for attempting to do this.

 

[N_Quire]

One chooses the debates one wishes to participate in and tastes vary over time. I did, not so long ago, take part in these "philosophical" discussions but am no longer inclined to do so. I, too, admire the resilience of the mentors. I have aimed no comments at you and would not dream of doing so. I am glad you find enlightenment here. PF is a good place to be.

 

[Les Sleeth]

CJames & Janus,

Before I throw in the towel and admit either my understanding of relativity is incorrect, or my ability to explain myself if inadequate, I want to try one more time. I am only trying again because in both of your responses you left out an important qualifier I listed for my point. But first a quick review to make sure I understand things.

Janus, I don’t know if you agree with CJames when he says the person who is measuring is at rest, and adds “. . . time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.” Now if that were true, then doesn’t that create a preferred frame of reference? Is my point correct that the reason for assuming the measuring position is at rest is for purposes of measurement and calculation alone? It’s not that one position is any more at rest (or moving) than another.

No one disputes that each twin ages differently while one travels, right? No one disputes that the rate of time is determined by one’s frame of reference. Do we agree that when we say no frame of reference is “preferred,” it means as one alters acceleration/gravity, time-space contracts/expands proportionately so that all factors always appear “normal.” Therefore (in the case of the twins paradox) the only way the traveling twin can tell if his frame of reference has been altered (from what it was while on Earth), is when he returns to the prior frame of reference and finds time there has marched along at a faster pace than his has.

The Qualifier – Prior Personal Experience
Now, the way I laid out the twin thought problem was a little different than it’s normally done. It wasn’t to demonstrate how relativity had worked perfectly correctly for each twin’s frame of reference. My question was to ask if the twin raised on Earth for 30 years at Earth’s rate of time were to take a spaceship journey where the rate of time differed from that rate previously “normal” to him, would any part of his consciousness notice? In other words, while there is no preferred frame of reference, the traveling twin does have 30 years of experience at Earth’s rate of time, and this is personal experience that is part of his being.

Janus answered, “. . . Consciousness has no unique sense of time of its own; That its sense of time is derived from its physical surroundings.” Of course, that is what I’m asking, and there is his opinion. My opinion is that consciousness might sense it in spite of all measurements appearing normal; yet to me it wouldn’t indicate that consciousness has it’s own sense of time, but rather that ultimately consciousness isn’t subject to time.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by N_Quire
LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, though I hardly see the difference between acting superior and saying you are "amused."

 

[N_Quire]

LW Sleeth, It was harsh and I don't mind. It must be preferable for you that I restrict my comments on these topics to avoid further antagonism. I am not amused by what you say, in fact I can appreciate the seriousness with which you debate. What amuses me is the fervor of the anti-materialists. I really don't think scientists, or most scientists, are that concerned with philosophy. But, in order to avoid irritating you further, I will bow out of this debate and let you get on with it. Peace!