A Full Understanding of the Twin Paradox Requires an Extension of Special Relativity: The Twin Paradox Analyzed Using Two Different Space‐Time Models

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Percival
1984 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-589
Author(s):  
Vedprakash Sewjathan

This paper constitutes a fundamental rederivation of special relativity based on thec-invariance postulate but independent of the assumptionds′2=±ds2(Einstein [1], Kittel et al [2], Recami [3]), the equivalence principle, homogeneity of space-time, isotropy of space, group properties and linearity of space-time transformations or the coincidence of the origins of inertial space-time frames. The mathematical formalism is simpler than Einstein's [4] and Recami's [3]. Whilst Einstein's subluminal and Recami's superluminal theories are rederived in this paper by further assuming the equivalence principle and “mathematical inverses” [4,3], this paper derives (independent of these assumptions) with physico-mathematical motivation an alternate singularity-free special-relativistic theory which replaces Einstein's factor[1/(1−V2/c2)]12and Recami's extended-relativistic factor[1/(V2/c2−1)]12by[(1−(V2/c2)n)/(1−V2/c2)]12, wherenequals the value of(m(V)/m0)2as|V|→c. In this theory both Newton's and Einstein's subluminal theories are experimentally valid on account of negligible terms. This theory implies that non-zero rest mass luxons will not be detected as ordinary non-zero rest mass bradyons because of spatial collapse, and non-zero rest mass tachyons are undetectable because they exist in another cosmos, resulting in a supercosmos of matter, with the possibility of infinitely many such supercosmoses, all moving forward in time. Furthermore this theory is not based on any assumption giving rise to the twin paradox controversy. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this theory for general relativity.


1991 ◽  
Vol 32 (7) ◽  
pp. 1788-1795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Zerzion ◽  
L. P. Horwitz ◽  
R. I. Arshansky

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 01-14
Author(s):  
Meriama Hansali Mebarki

The reinforcement sensitivity theory lacks basic sources of any human experience :time, place, and learning contexts that have shaped the reinforcement; therefore I have assumed a missing link in Gray's framework based on special relativity relying on the «what, where, and when of happenning»? as major resources of human conscious experience, which under punishment or reward exceed the sensitivity to pleasant or unpleasant stimuli transcending therefore the Weber law, that's why I called it: Psychological Space-Time Reinforcement Sensitivity “PSTRS” axis. The lasts explains BAS and BIS systems sensitivity to reinforcement across the cognitive space-time continuum of episodic memory, and not only across the two great dimensions of fear/anxiety and defensive distance of the McNaughton & Corr model of 2004. So, based on the disruption of the high-sensitivity information processing system in the brain, the four-dimensional conscious experience is distorted by its underlying sources and context. Thus, one of the timedominating records prevents the individual from overcoming the present., such in depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (psychological sensitivity to the past). These temporal records clearly lose their sequence and associative nature in dissociative symptoms due to the disruption of the most important milestone on which Einstein's physics was based. Consequently, psychological space-time reinforcement sensitivity supposes that psychological disorders can be interpreted according to the laws of special relativity (acceleration / deceleration), but this seems more complicated when it comes to mental disorders where the self is disturbed on its spatio-temporal axis as observed in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia looks like a three-componements disorder characterized by a disruption of the experience of time, place and self, which could be asummed up as a “self space-time disturbance". Notably schizophrenic patients appear losing the ability to gather in a dynamic way these componements, as if the world seemed missig the gestalt characteristic or fragmented. The past felt like an inevitable destiny inhibits the direction towards the future; sometimes disorient the self to the point of feeling lost, as if the psychological time slows down to the point of feeling separated from the « now » the physical time. So are we dealing with an Euclidian space? The article attempts to provide a non-traditional interpretation of mental disorders by including general relativity in psychological studies, based on the neurobiological bases involved in the spatio-temporal processing of the conscious experience in the quantum brain.


2019 ◽  
pp. 265-284
Author(s):  
Steven J. Osterlind

This chapter provides the context for the early twentieth-century events contributing to quantification. It was the golden age of scientific exploration, with explorers like David Livingstone, Sir Richard Burton, and Sir Ernest Shackleton, and intellectual pursuits, such as Hilbert’s set of unsolved problems in mathematics. However, most of the chapter is devoted to discussing the last major influencer of quantification: Albert Einstein. His life and accomplishments, including his theory of relativity, make up the final milestone on our road to quantification. The chapter describes his time in Bern, especially in 1905, when he published several famous papers, most particularly his law of special relativity, and later, in 1915, when he expanded it to his theory of general relativity. The chapter also provides a layperson’s description of the space–time continuum. Women of major scientific accomplishments are mentioned, including Madame Currie and the mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani.


2020 ◽  
pp. 026377582094452
Author(s):  
Stefan Schwarzkopf ◽  
Jessica Inez Backsell

This article provides a genealogy of the freeport, which are tax-free warehouse facilities for collectors and investors to store artwork and other luxury collectibles in a way that exempts them from customs duties and taxes. The case of the freeport raises questions about the fate of art in neoliberal wealth management regimes, but also questions about the geopolitical and spatial nature of financialized capitalism. The article works with Carl Schmitt’s theory of the spatial framing of political–economic orders around the juxtaposition of land and sea and shows that freeports detach themselves from this oppositional logic. Further, we propose that a full understanding of the freeport as space–time arrangement needs to take recourse to a particular medieval theological concept, namely that of purgatory. Based on this interpretative framework, we argue that mobility-oriented sociological concepts are insufficient to grasp the nature of the freeport.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document