PRESENTATION
Some
treatises on the Theory of Relativity explain the story of the “Twin Brothers”
saying the following: “In two twin brothers, one of them is an astronaut. The
astronaut leaves for a sidereal flight in which he reaches a speed close to
that of light. Returning to Earth he finds that his twin brother has aged much
older than he has.
The following figure tries to represent this
circunstance:
Figure 1
The drawing represents the beginning of the journey, the journey, and the return. In this third phase, the older brother who has remained on Earth is represented. In the aforementioned books this nonsense is called "the paradox of the twin brothers"
Looking for
the definition of paradox, we have found as a definition: "Done or said
apparently contrary to logic." It is curious that, considering the meaning
of this word, they still dare to maintain science fiction arguments that seek
to validate such a paradox, thus protecting the false theory of time dilation.
Next, we explain the reason for such an outrage to logic.
GENESIS OF
FOOLISHNESS
In A.
Einstein's book entitled: "On the Theory of Special and General
Relativity", he quotes a train car that runs with uniform speed and
rectilinear, and then makes the following statement:
“The time
that a process needs in relation to the wagon cannot be equal to the duration
of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment”
This
statement generates the fallacy of time dilation and the other nonsense that we
see written about the Theory of Relativity.
In this
statement we find three errors:
A logical
error in the statement that appears in the aforementioned book
A
contradiction between two statements that appear in his own cited book
An erroneous
interpretation in different treatises on the subject of the aforementioned
theory, to try to validate nonsense.
We briefly describe
these errors below.
AN ERROR OF
LOGIC:
In the
quoted statement he uses the word PROCESS.
We
understand and define as a process:
"The
occurrence of two or more Events linked to each other and keeping a certain
sequence in their realization and that requires a certain execution time"
When
mentioning in the aforementioned statement "the time that a process
requires", this time is INHERENT to the process. It will serve to
identify it and we will call it Own Time of the Process (tp). And you can't
have another when looking at it from outside the train car. Or from different
situations in outer space.
Two
different Proper Times imply two different Processes
A PROCESS is
not transformed by the mere fact of contemplating it from outside the car
A CONTRADICTION
BETWEEN TWO STATEMENTS THAT APPEAR IN THE CITED BOOK
In the
statement that we have transcribed from the aforementioned book, "the time
that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...," a contradiction
appears.
This
affirmation has been tried to express it in some books by means of the
following drawing:
Figure 2
In this drawing appears one of the PROCESSES, of which the referred affirmation speaks. It is the one followed by a beam of light emitted inside the car. This ray is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of it. From this they deduce that the time that the beam takes to go to the mirror, reflect in it and return to the starting point where the person who fired it will be different for this person from the one who is fixed on the embankment of the train.
But… in
another part of the book it says:
“If a
(SRM) moves with respect to a (SRF) then the natural phenomena occur with
respect to the (SRM) according to the same general laws as with respect to the
(SRF).”
What are we
left with?... This statement is against the other statement that says:
"The
time that a process needs in relation to the wagon, no...".
If we consider the person who is fixed on the ground
of the embankment as the Fixed Reference System (SRF) and the PROCESS is
developed in the environment of a Mobile Reference System (SRM)… “then the natural phenomena take
place with respect to the (SRM ) according to the same general laws as with
respect to the (SRF).”
And
therefore, the observer outside the wagon should not experience any difference
to the phenomenon that occurs inside the wagon. This is the contradiction that
we announced.
A WRONG
INTERPRETATION TO TRY TO VALIDATE A FOOLISHNESS.
To improve the interpretation of what we want
to explain, we propose to use another drawing. Like the previous drawing,
Figure 3 means the movement of the train car inside which a beam of light is
shot that is reflected in a mirror located on the roof of the car.
Figure 3
The round trip time of the light ray is its Proper Time (tp) In each advance position of the wagon the direction of the ray is represented. With this drawing we may clearly see that the ray of light is moving in the same vertical as the person who launches it and that it has its Own Time (tp) inherent to this phenomenon.
It is absurd
to argue that, as the person who is outside the car, fixed on the ground, has
lengthened the completion of the reflection of the ray of Light, time has
dilated.
From outside
the wagon: The VISION of the image of the phenomenon is lengthened. Not the
Proper Time (tp) of the phenomenon
Applying
this conclusion to the “twin brothers paradox” we can say:
If we assume
that the person who launches the lightning from inside the train car is the
astronaut twin brother, we can affirm that both the Reflection Process of the
lightning and the biological process of the aforementioned person have their
Proper Time (tp) invariable compared to observation from Eart
(NOTE: in
the treatises on the subject that concerns us, they present a relationship
between the Travel Time of the ray (td) and the Proper Time (tp) of the
reflection phenomenon. This relationship is as follows:
In which the expression: 1/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) is known as
the "Lorentz Factor", and in which (c) is the speed of light. (The calculation of this relationship
the reader can find described in one of our essays)
As the
aforementioned books state that the (td) is the time it takes for the man located
outside the train car to see the end of the ray reflection process and , the
(tp) is the Proper Time, which is the one that sees the man who is inside the
wagon and, as the Lorentz Factor has a value greater than one, they come to the
strange conclusion that time dilates since: (td) > (tp).
we repeat
that from outside the wagon WE SEE the lengthening of the end of the phenomenon
due to the displacement of the wagon. This elongation is due to the Travel Time
(td))
A THIRD LOOK
Unlike physical experiments, so-called thought
experiments sometimes stray too far from reality and logical reasoning in their
approach. We could apply
this statement to the mental experiment of the train car that we have
previously exposed, and another experiment that A. Einstein uses in his
aforementioned book. It is about the mental experiment that he proposes so that
we accept as valid the “Principle of Equivalence”. It is another fallacy that
we have already talked about in other of our essays. With the sole purpose of
stopping to make a brief reflection on this topic, we have tried to visualize
with a drawing what happens in these thought experiments. We have baptized such
a drawing as "the third eye"
Figure 4
This drawing is intended to suggest the
following. It is we who are judging what could happen in the Thought Experiment
that poses the fallacy of time dilation and, by assimilation, the paradox of
the twin brothers.
It is our
eye that visualizes and analyzes the situation. It is an observation outside
the gaze and interpretation of the two acting agents. In other words, the man
who is riding the train and the man who is still on the embankment and
contemplates the course of the ray of light. Our eye, the Third eye, will see
that the man standing still on the ground SEES that the Process is lengthening
for the astronaut. He sees that the Process is slowing down. But we reason that
life is not slower for the astronaut, but rather that he is mounted on a
vehicle that transports physical phenomena: the phenomenon of the reflection of
a ray of light or the biological phenomenon of the person who launches the ray.
And this does not modify at all the Proper Time (tp) of the Processes of it.
THE TIME
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MOBILE CLOCKS
In this
paragraph we denounce the fallacy of the mobile watch test. This fallacy is
intended to justify the nonsense of "time dilation."
Its
promoters say that a mobile clock with respect to another fixed one, and moving
this mobile clock at a speed close to that of light, the time indicated by this
clock dilates. They are talking about infinitesimal and almost negligible
units. These advertisers of such a fallacy justify this time difference by
speaking of an experiment of doubtful authenticity and verification, carried
out with atomic clocks, without any guarantee of authenticity. We criticize
this argument again using the logic
The
following figure represents the train car that we mentioned before, but that
now we do not consider the launch of a ray of light. Inside it now contains a
pendulum clock.
Figure 5
The person
who is fixed on the ground has a clock that controls the passage of time. This
fixed clock will be taken as a time reference.
The pendulum clock swings from left to right and vice
versa. We ask ourselves: can we say that the time inside the wagon has been
dilated because the fixed observer takes a longer time to SEE the oscillation
that the pendulum makes from left to right? oscillation is due to the fact that
the fixed observer's vision of the arrival goal is being displaced. None of the “time dilation” nonsense!
The doubt
might arise that we have exposed this thought experiment in which we have
implicitly assumed that the pendulum could swing thanks to gravity. The reader
will already understand that we can do this same approach in outer space, using
a mechanical watch.
We believe that with the above reasoning we
have declared the “twin brothers paradox” to be a fallacy.
