3.c) Einstein’s theories and the twin paradox
In a physics book explaining the twin paradox, it says at the end, “… What happened was that the accelerations of A altered his biological processes, and therefore –when the conclusions of General Relativity for the case of the altered clocks are applied– we find that upon his return, A will be younger than B…”
Even if this were to be true –which is improbable, given that is an impossible and imaginary thought experiment– it would not have anything to do with the supposed relativity of time.
Let us see a counterexample: we have two identical pieces of wood, one of which we leave without moving; the other we drag along the ground at a high velocity, and after a few kilometers, we return it to its original place.
There will be a difference in the apparent “age” of the two pieces of wood. However, we are sorry, but we do not see any alteration of time itself.
Likewise, with the twin paradox; one of them would suffer the effect of speed, with alterations in his mass and –following this hypothetical example– his metabolism would alter, and so he might age quickly (instead of dying of excitement).
However, we still do not see any demonstration when it comes to changes in speed of time, as Einstein’s theories state. We all know some animals have a much faster metabolism than ours. Nevertheless, we do not think that they live in a parallel universe or anything like that.
To sum up, although it could ultimately be a correct example, the twin paradox poses three critical problems when it comes to scientific method. The first one, already mentioned above, is that it is a mathematical and unreal example, which deals with vital aspects out of reasonable context.
The second, Special Relativity (SR) used a forced language style full of technical connotations and mixed with ordinary and everyday language.
Providing we can swap one twin for another –we suppose that is the idea behind calling it twin paradox– if there is nothing to prevent it –such as in the supposition of Special Relativity–, one could never be older than the other could. Indeed, one does not need mathematics for this quick and straightforward reasoning.
The twin paradox is a well-known paradoxical example that describes Einstein’s theories. It also poses most significant problems when it comes to scientific method, as it is a theoretical and unfeasible thought experiment.
The twin paradox is an intrinsic contradiction to the relativity of time, which has no solution unless applying General Relativity (RG). That is to say, creating privileged frames of reference to distinguish between which twin moves or accelerates more. However, this is just opposite meaning of pure relativity.
Also, SR should always be a particular case of GR; therefore, the solution should have been present in Einstein’s first theory.
In fact, GR says just the opposite to SR in many aspects; in this way, with tailored definitions and with either one or the other, practically everything is explained, both the real and the imaginary.
Einstein’s theories are a set of ideas that work. They work because they indeed include some mathematical rules of nature, it cannot be any other way. However, when its mathematical apparatus does not obscure laws of physics, it denaturalizes them completely.
When we have asked authentic experts, “why light deviates double amount in relativity than in Newton Law of Gravitation?” No one has been able to give us any non-mathematical reason. It must be that no one or almost no one knows the physical meaning behind field equations and their operations for this case.
Regardless, besides very few people understand Einstein’s theory, the theory makes one or two serious mistakes, which, as a whole, create a considerable obstacle to the current development of science in this area.
Ptolemy’s theory concerning terrestrial geocentrism also worked –until it stopped working–. Einstein’s theories mean not only a return to this geocentrism but an accentuation along this line, as they bestow the honor of being the center of the universe upon any point or particle, which they call the observer.
In fact, General Theory of Relativity creates a privileged frame of reference, as it situates mass and its gravitational effect in geometry of space-time, though unfortunately for Philosophy, it still inverts definition of gravity concerning its math-physics dichotomy.
To finish this book, here we have a bit of poetic prose. In addition to the innocent twins of the thought paradox, there are particular elements that, to our understanding, want to resign from relativity because they are not happy. We are referring to the following:
Love, who’s furious
Tormented by the chimeric equations. He told us he loves ours!
Relativity of time and space
One thing is to make time a bit relative, like in the hypothetical case of the Venusian little red dwarf, but quite another is brutal changes that the poor meson suffers before disintegrating, despite its short lifespan!
Continuing with the meson, it must also have eagle eyes, because it sees every meter as almost sixteen times normal ones.
Indeed, mathematics is a tool for explaining reality. However, to alter reality to such extremes, to solve the math, well, we do not think the little meson quite understands that.
The ignorant observer
Any observer would wish to be at least as intelligent as we could make him.
The pale light
Weakened by brightness of fix constants of boredom
Gravity, who’s sad
Locked up and imprisoned in the imaginary tower of mathematical space-time.
That feels the environmental gap between scientific knowledge and its underlying social understanding.
That feels unjustly limited and exaggerated, depending on how one looks, thinks or handles it!
Nonetheless, it does not look like a simple task, convincing everybody of errors in Einstein’s theories to wipe them from the map –even if they were genuinely mistaken.
As time passes, it becomes a more arduous task; but at the same time, it shows that time is not as relative as many living beings might wish.
All in good time!
* * *