Physics-Special Relatvity-Twin Paradox

Twin Paradox

Data Does Not Match Special Relativity Time Dilation
Open Letter On Twin Paradox
Open Letter On Special Relativity
Sign Open Letter
Survey Questionnaire
Mainstream Response
Debate Methodology
Can't Be Due To Relative Velocity
Can't Be Due To Turnaround Acceleration
Time Difference Accumulation Is Not Indeterminate
Dingle's Question
Blog Discussion
Two Step Argument
Three Step Argument
Two Step Argument #2

Top Divider


An Open Letter to the Physics Community
The Twin Paradox

2011 is the centennial anniversary of the publication of Paul Langevin’s famous paper “On Space and Time” in which he introduced, what became popularly known, as the Twin Paradox. This letter discusses the results of a recent study of the Twin Paradox problem. This study concluded that, after 100 years of work on this famous problem in special relativity, the Twin Paradox continues to be unresolved. Our purpose in writing this letter is to request that a specific, new course of action be undertaken to resolve this problem.

Follow-On Open Letter - On Special Relativity
The responses to this Twin Paradox Open Letter showed that there was indeed great confusion about the meaning of time dilation and other key constructs in Special Relativity even for the official spokesmen for Special Relativity and for the most prestigous of mainstream physicists. So we have created a follow-on "Open Letter On Special Relativity". This follow-on open letter simply asks for the physics establishment to clearly define the meaning of the key constructs of Special Relativity. If Special Relativity is well understood, this will be a trivially easy task to do. On the other hand, if the mainstream is unwilling or unable to clearly define the meaning of Special Relativity, that strongly reinforces the argument for such a definition. As feedback, or lack thereof, materializes, it will be posted on this site. At the moment, the "Open Letter On Special Relativity" is a standalone page as the rest of the web site was developed in support of the original Twin Paradox Open Letter although much is relevant to the general discussion of the "Open Letter On Special Relativity".

Also, note that the web site has grown dramatically in scope as other new pages have been added and updated. Checkout all the pages including the Data Does Not Match Special Relativity Time Dilation and the 2 Two-Step Argument pages and a Three Step Argument page as they should be most thought provoking. If you wish to add your own comments, check out the Blog Discussion page.

Intermediate Results, Summary, Conclusion
Even though we're posting intermediate results/summary/conclusion, research and input gathering continues so please sign the Open Letter below and read the Report and answer the Questionnaire, if appropriate.

The open letter was posted in October 2010. In addition, we sent the survey of Twin Paradox questions to physics organizations, physics journals, university physics departments and individual physicists. A summary of results follows:
- A significant number of the physics community, including the signatories below, believe that the Twin Paradox is unresolved or unresolvable with currently accepted theory. Support for the "There is no paradox" position comes primarily from the "core of the mainstream", namely, those who control what will be published, funding, etc.

- There's virtually no support for Special Relativity's time dilation as cause for the net proper time dilation (NPTD) and, according to survey results no such support from the "core of the mainstream". (Overlooked is the fact that the exact same logic that rules out Special Relativity's time dilation as cause for the NPTD also rules out interpreting Special Relativity's time dilation as describing any related physical effect (e.g., any NPTD).) This retreat from Einstein's original 1905 claim by virtually all, including Einstein himself, is due to that claim leading to obvious contradictions. Despite this dramatic reversal, support for the "There is no paradox" position remained as confidently held as before. Proponents of the "There is no paradox" position went on to endorse a wide variety of (mostly mutually exclusive) alternatives over the decades

- The "core of the mainstream" position has now evolved to the very general claim that the NPTD is due to the "kinematics of spacetime". Further, this very general claim includes the assertion that one cannot tell how much of the NPTD accumulates between events unless both of a pair of events lie on both twins' worldlines (e.g., just the start and end events of a Twin Paradox round trip). It does indeed appear that currently accepted theory, namely relativity, cannot describe the physics (e.g., the how, when, where) of the NPTD accumulation. Further, the claim that the final, total NPTD is due to the "kinematics of spacetime" does not include any specific characteristic that would tie it to either Special Relativity or General Relativity. In fact, logic indicates that describing how the NPTD accumulates requires the construct of velocity with respect to a single physics frame or object or field.

- A preferred frame theory, which employs the same Lorentz factor as Special Relativity but where velocity is always measured with respect to a single, preferred frame, gives a complete physics explanation of how the NPTD accumulates without any hint of a paradox

- It's claimed that existing experimental data regarding time dilation supports relativity. This appears to be true for effects due to a difference in gravitational potential. However, Special Relativistic (velocity related) data falls into one of the following categories:
a) The data is indeed consistent with Special Relativity but is also equally supportive of preferred frame theory.
b) The data approximately matches Special Relativity but is a better match with preferred frame theory.
c) The data appears to be consistent with Special Relativity but ONLY if velocity is measured with respect to a specific preferred frame.
d) The data is in sharp disagreement with Special Relativity but agrees with preferred frame theory.
An example of the above is GPS. For determing clock rates as a function of velocity, special relativity is NOT actually used. The model and algorithm actually used is from Lorentz Relativity where all measurements and calculations use velocity with respect to a single frame - in the case of GPS, it's the ECI frame. Further, while Earth observers measure, in effect (see Report for the full details), satellite clocks as running slow due to velocity, clocks/instruments on the satellites measure earth clocks running FAST due to velocity. One might try to rule out these latter observations that are in sharp contradiction with special relativity's time dilation by claiming such observations are invalid as the satellites are not inertial, but this assertion would also rule out using special relativity for the GPS system for the velocity component as neither satellites nor the rotating earth are inertial. For a more detailed description on time differrence data go to the
"Data Does Not Match Special Relativty Time Dilation" page.

Another example of the a) class of data discussed above is kinematics including particle collisions. For this area, as many have noted, the predictions from Special Relativity and Lorentz Relativity are the same. So the Einsteinian relativist might ask, "Why irritate me by bringing up preferred frame theory and Lorentz Relativity?" The reasons are:
1) Special Relativity does not directly describe what's happening physically. It describes how different observers observe the world, but, in the context of a physical description, these different views contradict each other. Furthermore, its unlikely that space physically morphs into time and vice versa. Taking Special Relativity as directly describing what's happening physically leads to many, well known paradoxes. In contrast, Lorentz Relativity gives a single, coherent, consistent, direct description of what's happening physically. Physics should be interested in a direct description of what's happening physically.
2) There are phenomena where the physical world that underlies the world of observations peaks through. Two examples, namely, the Twin Paradox and GPS, involve accumulated proper time.
3) Advances in physics would be assisted if physics had an accurate, direct description of what's happening physically.
4) Relativists claim that Special Relativity must be true because the data matches its predictions. If one were to be consistent, then one would conclude that Lorentz clock retardation must be true.

CONCLUSION: A serious analysis of the Twin Paradox and related phenomena call out for a study of preferred frame theory and a more careful analysis of existing data.

For details see Twin Paradox Report and also see the Twin Paradox Challenge and the Mainstream Response.

ATTENTION PHYSICS PROFESSORS: To make sure your views are represented, please go to the Survey Questionnaire page and fill out and Submit the form. Also, note the Twin Paradox Challenge near the end of the Report page.

ATTENTION STUDENTS: After reading this Open Letter, Report page and Mainstream Response page, please go to the Students page.

A summary of our findings, as detailed in the Twin Paradox Report, is as follows. We investigated published books and journal papers and interviewed proponents of claimed resolutions of the problem. The proposed resolutions were divided into the following categories:

- Resolutions that claimed to employ only the postulates and methods of the special or restricted theory of relativity in which the differential aging effect is due to relative motion.

- Resolutions that invoke the general theory of relativity and, by implication, contend that there is no solution possible from the principles of the special theory of relativity.

- Resolutions that invoke, often implicitly, different or additional assumptions than used in either the special or general theory and, by implication, contend that there is no resolution possible using either theory.

Hence, it’s clear that there are many conflicting opinions about the resolution of the Twin Paradox among “mainstream”, relativist professors.

Although the mainstream consensus is that the paradox is not a problem and as such has a definitive solution, there is no agreement as to exactly what that solution is as the physics journals and textbooks are full of conflicting solutions to this problem. Hence, we suggest that an open, public discussion of this problem be undertaken with the objective of resolving this critical problem. We ask that, as step one, the “mainstream” physics community select a single, definitive solution to this problem. In addition, we ask that it state which alternative solutions are essentially equivalent to the chosen solution and which alternatives are deemed invalid. If the Twin Paradox is well understood and if there is a generally accepted solution, then this should be a very easy task.

[For more details see the Twin Paradox Report.]

If you want to sign this Open Letter, please Click Here.

(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages

Nick Percival, Twin Paradox Project Leader; CNPS (USA)
Harry Ricker, Relativity Group Leader: CNPS (USA)
Greg Volk, CNPS (USA)
David de Hilster, CNPS (USA)

Prof. Dr. Hartwig Thim, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria, IEEE, CNPS/NPA (Austria)
Prof. Joe Nahhas, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Robert de Hilster, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Prof. Diego Saá, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, CNPS/NPA (Ecuador)
MA(EE) John-Erik Persson, CNPS/NPA (Sweden)
Francis Viren Fernandes, Scientist, Mediclone Biotech Pvt. Ltd, CNPS/NPA (India)
Prof. Dr. Rati Ram Sharma, Albert Schweitzer Prize-1989 & Nominee for Nobel Prize in Medicine-1996, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, CNPS/NPA (India)
Pharis E. Williams, New Mexico Tech (retired), CNPS/NPA (USA)
Ian Montgomery, CNPS/NPA (Australia)
Bruce Harvey, Theoretical Physicist, CNPS/NPA (UK)
Prof. Ian McCausland, University of Toronto, CNPS/NPA (Canada)
Kenneth L. Moore, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dr. Marvin E. Kirsh, California State University Los Angeles, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dr. Pal Asija, CNPS/NPA, Our Pal LLC (USA)
Dr. Janusz D. Laski, CNPS/NPA (Poland)
Dr. Thomas E. Phipps, Jr, CNPS/NPA (USA)
John Remington Graham, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Thierry J. De Mees, CNPS/NPA (Belgium)
Prof. Gary Johnson, Kansas State University, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Charles E. Weber, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dr. Glenn Borchardt, Progressive Science Institute, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dr. Michael H. Brill, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Ronald R. Hatch, 24 GPS patents, Institute of Navigation, CNPS/NPA (USA)
S. I. Wells, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Ravil B.Kalmykov, CNPS/NPA (Russia)
Prof. J. G. Klyushin, Saint-Petersburg University of Civil Aviation, CNPS/NPA (Russia)
Prof. Stephan J.G. Gift, The University of the West Indies (Trinidad and Tobago)
Viraj Fernando, CNPS/NPA (Canada/Sri Lanka)
Prof. Franco Selleri, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, New York Academy of Sciences, Fondation Louis de Broglie, Telesio Galilei Academy of Science, Bari University, CNPS/NPA, past Board of Directors of the Italian Physical Society-CERN-Saclay-Cornell-Dubna (Italy)
Jocelyne Lopez, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Prof. Frederic Lassiaille, Polytechsophia, CNPS/NPA (France)
Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies, Department of Physics(retd), University of Hull; President Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science, CNPS/NPA (England)
Dipl. Ing. Ekkehard Friebe, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dipl. Ing. Peter Ripota, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dipl. Phys. Hans Deyssenroth, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Prof.(retd) Johann Marinsek, CNPS/NPA (Austria)
Prof. Zifeng Li, Yanshan University CNPS/NPA (China)
Karlheinz Baumgartl, Kosmologe (Germany)
Seadin Jelovac, CNPS/NPA (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Reiner Bergner, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Lin Haibing (China)
Prof Dr Velimir Abramovich, University of Belgrade, CNPS/NPA (Serbia)
Rothwell Bronrowan (Germany)
Bai Tao (China)
Wei Enqing (China)
Ph.D Peter Kohut, CNPS/NPA (Slovakia)
Dr. Niels v. Festenberg, Technische Universität Dresden, DPG (Germany)
Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt, Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dr. Peter Hayes, University of Sunderland, CNPS/NPA (UK)
Robert L. Henderson, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dr. Józef Kajfosz, CNPS/NPA (Poland)
W. H. Owen, CNPS/NPA (Australia)
Xinwei Huang (China)
Dr. Sergey N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, CNPS/NPA (Russia)
Walter Babin, Editor, General Science Journal, CNPS/NPA (Canada)
Dionysios G. Raftopoulos, Dipl. Mech.-EE of NTUA, CNPS/NPA (Greece)
Prof. Dr. Tolga Yarman, Okan University, CNPS/NPA (Turkey)
Dr. Egbert Scheunemann, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dr. Joseph Levy , CNPS/NPA (France)
Barrie J Tonkinson, IEE, CNPS/NPA (UK)
V. N. Kochetkov, FSUE, CNPS/NPA, (Russia).
Dr. D. F. Roscoe, School of Mathematics (retd) University of Sheffield, CNPS/NPA (UK)
G. O. Mueller, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dr. Milos Abadzic, CNPS/NPA (Serbia)
Ing.(grad.) Lothar Pernes, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
John Doan, CNPS/NPA, JDX (Australia)
Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Lange (Germany)
Henry Lindner, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Dipl. Chem. Ing. Herbert Sommer Resalt, (Spain)
Stephen J. Crothers, CNPS/NPA (Australia)
Nainan K. Varghese, CNPS/NPA (India)
Dr. Luigi Romano, CNPS/NPA (Italy)
Parwis Nabavi (Germany)
Associate Professor Boon Leong Lan, Monash University, CNPS/NPA (Malaysia)
William Gaede , Researcher @ ViNi, CNPS/NPA (Argentina)
Karl Reiter (Austria)
Dr.-Ing. Günter Dinglinger, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dr. Michael Harder, Bureau of Interdisciplinary Sciences (Germany)
Luitpold Mayr, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Dr. rer. nat. Zycha Harald (Austria)
Dr. Phys. Silvano Lorenzoni (Italy)
Ing. HF Gerhard Klose, DARC (Germany)
Prof.(em) Alfred Evert, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Mustafa Sprecic, CNPS/NPA (Bosna i Hercegovina)
Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Wigbert Winkler (Austria)
Dr. Ajay Sharma, Shimla Gaurav Awardee, FPS, CNPS/NPA, (India)
Dipl.Math. Johannes Rasper, CNPS/NPA (Germany)
Alexander Weise (Germany)
Dr. Nikolay Chavarga, CNPS/NPA (Ukraine)
Associate Prof. Yang Xintie, NPU (China)
Harald Hölbling (Sweden)
Theophanes E. Raptis, DAT -NCSR Demokritos, CNPS/NPA (Greece)
HSG/USG Peter Herzig (Switzerland)
Eduard Bardas, (Germany)
Dr. Manfred Lichtinger (Germany)
Ricardo V. Consiglio (Brazil)
José Miguel Ledesma, Engineer (Argentina)
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Joachim Blechle (Germany)
Azzam AlMosallami, The Science Center for Studies and Research (Palestine)
Eyüp Firat, Theoretical Physicist, General Science Journal (Turkey)
Dipl. Ing. Alexandar Nikolov, Technical University, Sofia; CNPS/NPA (Bulgaria)
Dr. Graeme Heald, NATA (Australia)
Antonio Saraiva, CNPS/NPA (Portugal)
Antonis N. Agathangelidis, CNPS/NPA (Greece)
Eng. Alfredo Dimas Moreira Garcia (Brasil)
Christos A.Tsolkas, (Greece)
Prof. Bernard Guy, Ecole N.S. des Mines de Saint Etienne (France)
Dipl.-Ing. Claus Grüning, Schule (Germany)
Ing. Christian Sutterlin, Jean de Climont associates Ltd, CNPS/NPA, (France)
Denys Lépinard, WSM (France)
Dr. Yefim Bakman, Tel Aviv University (Israel)
Ron Heath (USA)
Prof. Bertrand Wong, Eurotech, S'pore Branch (Singapore)
Peter G. Bass, CNPS/NPA (U.K.)
Nillo Gallindo (Brazil)
Steve Waterman, CNPS/NPA (Canada)
Paul Talbot (Canada)
Harald W. Sommer (Austria)
Mamoru Hidaka (Japan)
Roger J Anderton, CNPS/NPA (UK)
Eng. Jesus Sanchez (Spain)
D. Birks (USA)
Marcus Coleman (Australia)
Ing. Nicolae Joica (Romania)
Dr. Nico Benschop, Amspade Research (Netherlands)
Dr. Craig Dilworth, Uppsala University (Sweden)
Prof. Sonu Kumar (UK)
Prof. Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, Mahanakorn University of Technology (Thailand)
Prof. Milan Kecman, CNPS/NPA (Bosna i Hercegovina)
Prof. Viv Pope, POAMS (Wales)
Prof.(ret.) Dr. Johan F. Prins, Sage Wise 66 (Pty) Ltd (South Africa)
Ingenieur Dane Gacesa (Serbia)
Dr. Jan Meijer (Netherlands)
Dr. C. Johan Masreliez, EST Foundation (USA)
Luiz Ernesto Credidio Mura, IPEN (Brazil)
Maciej Rybick (Poland)
Mohammad Shafiq Khan (India)
Forrest Bishop, CNPS/NPA (USA)
Prof. Florentin Smarandache (USA)
Dr. Al McDowell (USA)
Dr. S. V. Shevchenko (Ukraine)
Glenn A. Baxter, Prof. Eng. (Physicist), CNPS/NPA, The Scientific Journal (USA)
Dr. Victor Kuligin, Voronezh State University (Russia)
Dipl.-Ing Christoph W. Weritz, DARC (Germany)
Andrew Laidlaw (Australia)
Dipl.Ing Branko Vasiljev (Croatia)
Ivan Fordjarini (Serbia)
Dr. Bill McCann, SUST (China)
Tom Hollings (England)
Dipl. Ing. Octavian Balaci (Romania)
Dr. Anastasia-Maria Leventi-Peetz (Germany)
Msc.Eng. Andrew Wutke (Australia)
Dr. Johan Masreliez (USA)
Dipl. Ing. Dimiter G. Stoinov CNPS/NPA (Bulgaria)
Dr. Emiro Díez Saldarriaga (Columbia)
George Coyne Director CNPS (Canada)


Bottom Divider

Physics-Special Relatvity-Twin Paradox
Last Modified: Saturday, August 19, 2017
©2018Nick Of Time