The Twin Paradox and the Symmetry Problem in Relativity: A Century of Debates and a New Resolution

1. Introduction: The Birth of a Paradox (1911–1920)

The story begins with Paul Langevin who, in 1911, proposed a vivid illustration of time dilation: a twin traveling at near-light speed ages less than his sibling who remains on Earth. Langevin himself considered this a physical reality, not a paradox. But quickly, objections emerged:

• 1918: Herbert Dingle and others noted that if all motion is relative, each twin should see the other aging more slowly.
• The core paradox: How can a physical asymmetry (age difference) emerge from an apparent symmetry (equal and opposite relative velocities)?

The standard answer, developed in the 1920s–1930s, invokes the non-symmetry of the situations:

• The traveling twin undergoes accelerations (departure, turnaround, return)
• In special relativity, only inertial frames are equivalent
• The geometric calculation in Minkowski spacetime shows unambiguously that the traveler’s worldline (curved) is shorter than the stay-at-home twin’s (straight)

Apparent consensus: The paradox is mathematically resolved. But philosophically, it remains troubling.

2. The Tortured History of an Unfinished Debate (1950–2020)

2.1. The 1950s–1970s: The Era of Experiments

• 1950s: Discovery of time dilation in atmospheric muons
• 1971: Hafele–Keating experiment with atomic clocks flown on airplanes
• Experimental confirmation: Yes, moving clocks run slow
• But: These experiments validate the mathematical prediction, not a particular interpretation

2.2. Recurrent Objections

Several eminent physicists continued to question the standard interpretation:

• Herbert Dingle (1960s): Waged a campaign against the "internal contradiction" of special relativity
• Max Born (1962): Acknowledged that "the paradox has troubled philosophers for decades"
• Ether proponents: Noted that if Earth moved in a privileged frame, the asymmetry would become natural

2.3. The Contemporary Debate

In textbooks, the paradox is "solved." Yet:

• Papers continue to be published (over 100 since 2000)
• Conferences still dedicate sessions to the topic
• On physics forums, it is a perpetual discussion

The persistence of the debate reveals a deep dissatisfaction: The mathematical solution is clear, but physical intuition resists.

3. Reconciling Physical Space as an Elastic Medium with Relativity: Mathematical Consistency and Physical Foundation

A central question arises: how can a theory postulating space as an absolute physical elastic medium be compatible with both Special and General Relativity, whose success is beyond doubt? The answer lies in a crucial distinction between observational formalism and physical ontology. Our paradigm, which proposes Space as the sole physical entity of the universe [1], does not contradict the mathematical apparatus of relativity; it provides it with a physical foundation while reinterpreting its postulates.

3.1. The Michelson-Morley Result: What It Does Not Prove — Einstein’s Postulate as Choice, Not Proof

The historical interpretation of the Michelson-Morley (MM) null result as proving the absence of a medium constitutes one of the most consequential misunderstandings in physics history. The experiment did not—and could not—prove the nonexistence of a medium; it merely failed to detect Earth’s motion through what was then conceived as a static, rigid ether.

Einstein’s Postulate: A Philosophical Choice, Not an Experimental Necessity

Einstein’s 1905 declaration that "the introduction of a ’luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous" was not compelled by experiment but represented a philosophical preference for a purely relational physics. From this postulate of emptiness, he deduced the revolutionary consequences that distances and time deform with velocity. The success of his mathematical framework in predicting observations lent credence to his postulate but did not validate it as physical truth.

As rigorously demonstrated in [2], the MM null result is equally consistent with a generalized contraction condition:

$${\displaystyle \frac{L\left(v\right)}{T\left(v\right)}}=\sqrt{1-{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{c^2}}},$$

where $L\left(v\right)$ and $T\left(v\right)$ represent longitudinal and transverse deformations of matter moving at speed v relative to a medium. The standard assumption $T=1$ (no transverse deformation, no medium) is but one point in a continuum of possibilities satisfying this condition. Our paradigm selects the physically intuitive alternative: a real physical deformation in a medium while yielding the same null MM result.

Reversing the Logical Chain

Standard relativity proceeds as:

Postulate (no medium) → Deduction (spacetime deformation) → Mathematical formalism

Our paradigm reverses this:

Observation (spacetime deformation) → Medium exists + Physical explanation

This reversal restores the logical inheritance from centuries of practical physics: every vibration requires a medium because it is the medium that vibrates. From water waves to sound waves to seismic waves, vibrations are disturbances propagating through a physical substrate. To claim light propagates without a medium was not a conclusion forced by experiment but a radical ontological departure from all previous physics.

3.2. The Radical Simplicity: Space as the Sole Fundamental

Our paradigm’s most profound implication is ontological: space itself is the fundamental, vibrating medium, and the only physical reality in our universe. This represents a radical simplification compared to standard physics’ proliferation of entities:

Standard ontology:

• Space(time): Abstract background
• Matter: Separate particles/fields
• Forces: Separate interactions
• Light: Separate electromagnetic entity

Our ontology:

• Space: The fundamental elastic medium
• Matter: Standing wave patterns of space
• Light: Traveling wave patterns of space
• Forces: Gradient responses of wave patterns in space

This eliminates the artificial distinction between "space" and "content" that has plagued physics since Newton. Space is not an empty stage; it is the vibrating actor. The medium we postulate is not something in space—it is space. When we say "the elastic medium," we mean space itself has elastic, vibrational properties.

Why this matters for the twin paradox: In standard relativity, time dilation is a mysterious geometric property affecting clocks moving through abstract spacetime. In our paradigm, it’s a physical deformation of the vibrational patterns that constitute the twins’ very being. Their different motions through the spatial medium produce different deformations of their internal wave structures, leading to different aging rates. The mechanism is as concrete as sound waves changing frequency when source and receiver move through air—except here, the medium is space itself, and the "sound" is the vibration pattern that is the particle.

This ontological shift transforms relativity from a theory of abstract measurements to a theory of concrete vibrations. The constancy of light speed c is not an axiomatic mystery but a property determined by the medium’s elastic parameters that may exhibit local dependencies, analogous to sound speed in air. The twin paradox asymmetry emerges not from mathematical convention but from physical reality: different absolute velocities through space → different wave deformations → different proper times.

3.3. Relativity as an Observational Theory

Einstein’s insight was to construct a theory of measurements between observers in relative motion, deliberately bypassing the question of an underlying reality. Special Relativity (SR) is, in this sense, an observational or effective theory. It provides the correct mathematical rules for relating measurements (of time, length, energy) made by different observers, all of whom are themselves in motion and cannot directly access the medium’s rest frame.

The key to its success lies in the use of the only usable speed in formulas, relative velocity. In our paradigm, every observer’s measuring apparatus (clocks, rods) is physically deformed by its motion through the medium. An observer moving at speed v relative to the medium has:

• Clocks slowed by $\gamma {\left(v\right)}^{-1}$
• Rod length modified by motion
• Internal wave processes (defining mass, charge, etc.) consistently deformed

As derived geometrically from the wave nature of matter [3,4], these deformations conspire so that any measurement of the speed of light performed with such deformed apparatus yields the constant c. Furthermore, when two such deformed observers compare their measurements, the transformation rules are precisely the Lorentz transformations.

Thus, SR is indispensable and empirically correct as the theory of relations between moving observers. Its postulate of "no privileged frame" is not false but operational: within the universe of moving observers, no experiment has revealed who is "truly" at rest relative to the medium. The relativity principle holds at the level of observations.

3.4. Providing a Physical Basis for Relativity

Our paradigm completes the picture by providing the physical "why" behind the relativistic "how".

• Time Dilation & Length Contraction: These are real, physical deformations of the internal standing wave structure of matter as it moves through the elastic medium [4]. The Lorentz factor $\gamma \left(v\right)$ describes the magnitude of this geometric deformation.
• $E=m{c}^2$ & Mass-Energy Equivalence: The rest energy is the total vibrational energy of the particle’s standing wave pattern. Kinetic energy $(\gamma -1)m{c}^2$ is the additional energy stored in the velocity-dependent deformation of that pattern.
• Equivalence Principle: The equality of inertial and gravitational mass ($m_i=m_g$) finds a mechanistic explanation:

  -

  Inertial mass quantifies resistance to acceleration—the energy required to deform the particle’s standing wave pattern against the elasticity of space.

  -

  Gravitational mass quantifies the degree to which the particle’s wave pattern is deflected by gradients in the medium’s energy density $\nabla {\rho }_E$.

  -

  Common physical origin: Both phenomena spring from the same underlying reality—the particle’s total wave deformation energy. The particle’s waves constitute energy density in the medium and naturally deflect toward regions of higher matter concentration, creating mutual attraction.

  -

  Gravitational constant G: Emerges as the proportionality constant relating these two manifestations of the same deformation energy. It encodes how the elastic medium couples deformation energy to the creation of and response to energy density gradients—essentially quantifying space’s elastic compliance to energy density variations.

  The equivalence $m_i=m_g$ is thus necessary, not coincidental: same deformation energy, same elastic medium, same coupling through G. The equivalence is thus not coincidental but necessary: same energy, same medium, same physics.
• General Relativity (GR) and Curvature: In GR, mass-energy ’tells’ spacetime how to curve. In our paradigm, mass-energy (wave deformation energy) makes the local energy density gradient ${\rho }_E\left(\overrightarrow{r}\right)$. The gradient $\nabla {\rho }_E$ then guides other waves/particles. The Einstein field equations emerge as an effective, geometric description of this energy density landscape and its dynamics. The "curvature" of GR is a mathematical representation of the real, physical inhomogeneity and stress within the elastic medium.

3.5. The Paradigm Shift: From Postulate of Emptiness to Postulate of a Medium

The standard model is built upon a postulate of emptiness: the vacuum is a featureless void, and its properties (like the constancy of c) are axiomatic. Our paradigm is built upon a postulate of a medium: space is a vibratory entity whose elastic properties define c and govern wave dynamics.

If the equations of SR and GR remain valid, their interpretation changes:

• The speed of light c is not a fundamental constant of emptiness but the characteristic wave speed in the elastic medium, $c=\sqrt{\kappa /{\rho }_0}$, which emerges from its elastic properties. From the perspective of the absolute spatial frame, c may vary with local energy density. However, to any observer within the medium, c appears constant because all measuring instruments deform in sync with local conditions, ensuring light speed measurements always yield the same numerical value.
• Spacetime intervals are not primary but derived from phase relationships of waves in the medium.
• The relativity of simultaneity emerges from fundamental physical constraints in the elastic medium:

  -

  Observers with different absolute motions have differently deformed wave structures, leading to incompatible proper time rates

  -

  Even observers with identical absolute motion and synchronized clocks may disagree on distant event timing if light paths traverse different energy density regions : establishing simultaneity requires the knowledge of the medium inhomogeneity along all signal paths

  Einstein’s "relativity of simultaneity" is thus not a primitive postulate but a consequence of real wave mechanics in an inhomogeneous elastic medium.

This shift resolves the unease surrounding purely relational interpretations of relativity. It answers the child’s question: "Moving relative to what?" The answer is: moving relative to the spatial medium itself. The twin paradox asymmetry find natural, mechanistic explanations within this framework.

3.6. Conclusion of the Reconciliation

our paradigm, which posits space as a physical elastic medium achieves a synthesis:

• It retains the mathematical formalism and predictive power of Special and General Relativity.
• It reinterprets these theories as empirically observational frameworks that correctly describe the universe of moving, deformed observers.
• It provides a physical, mechanistic foundation for relativistic phenomena, replacing axiomatic postulates with wave mechanics in an elastic medium.
• It leads to new, testable predictions (like an orbiting precision clock and ion collisions) that distinguish it from the pure relative-motion interpretation.

Therefore, the paradigm does not overturn relativity; it completes it. It answers the "why" that Einstein’s theory set aside, offering a realist foundation that resolves century-old paradoxes while opening new avenues for empirical exploration.

4. Exposing the Relativistic Fallacy: The Illusion of Symmetry

4.1. The Fundamental Conceptual Error in Standard Relativity

Standard relativity commits a critical logical error when it declares configurations "symmetric" based solely on relative velocities. By denying the existence of any privileged frame, it must treat all relative motions as equivalent. When twin A departs Earth eastward at speed v and twin B departs westward at the same speed relative to Earth, standard relativity declares this situation perfectly symmetric: each twin should see the other age at the same rate, and upon return (after identical acceleration profiles), they should have aged equally.

The Error Exposed: This "symmetry" is an illusion of relational thinking. It assumes that because the velocities relative to Earth are equal and opposite, the physical situations are identical. But this assumes Earth’s frame is ontologically special—which relativity explicitly denies! If all frames are truly equivalent, then there is no reason to privilege Earth’s perspective when declaring symmetry. From twin A’s frame, Earth and twin B are both moving away, but at different speeds (v for Earth, approximately $2v/(1+v^2/c^2)$ for twin B after relativistic addition). The situations are not symmetric from A’s perspective, yet standard relativity still calls the overall scenario "symmetric" because it secretly reverts to Earth’s frame for that judgment.

Relativity misses the point: the initial declaration of symmetry was frame-dependent and therefore, by it’s own principles, not physically meaningful.

The medium resolves this: With an absolute spatial medium as reference, true symmetry is objectively defined: equal speeds relative to the medium. The configuration is symmetric only if $|{\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }+\overrightarrow{v}|=|{\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }-\overrightarrow{v}|$, which occurs only when ${\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }·\overrightarrow{v}=0$ or $V_{\oplus }=0$.

4.2. The Pragmatic Acceptance

The scientific community’s acceptance of this conceptual inconsistency stems from pragmatic necessity rather than logical satisfaction. Two key factors explain why this fallacy has persisted for over a century:

1. Operational Utility Without Absolute Knowledge

Since we have no direct experimental access to our absolute velocity through the spatial medium if it exists, physicists are forced to work exclusively with relative velocities. Special relativity provides the correct mathematical prescription for doing so. As Einstein himself emphasized, his theory was deliberately constructed as a theory of measurements between observers, deliberately agnostic about underlying reality. The formalism works flawlessly for:

• Calculating particle trajectories in accelerators
• Predicting gravitational lensing
• And some other empirical tests

The "symmetry" language, while conceptually problematic, causes no practical errors in these applications because it always reduces to calculations in some chosen frame—typically the laboratory or center-of-mass frame.

2. The Medium’s Inaccessibility to Moving Observers

Our paradigm explains why the medium remains hidden: all measuring instruments (clocks, rulers, atoms) are themselves physical structures whose wave patterns deform according to their motion through the medium. An observer moving at velocity $\overrightarrow{v}$ relative to the medium has:

• Clocks that tick slower by $\gamma {\left(v\right)}^{-1}$
• Rulers contracted along $\overrightarrow{v}$
• Light speed measurements that always yield c

This conspiracy of deformations, derived from wave geometry in the elastic medium [3], makes the absolute frame empirically inaccessible to any observer within the system. Relativity therefore correctly describes the observational universe even if they misdescribe the physical reality.

The Critical Distinction:

We must distinguish:

• Operational/Effective Theory: Relativity as a set of rules for relating measurements (mathematically correct, pragmatically indispensable)
• Fundamental/Ontological Theory: Relativity as a description of ultimate reality (conceptually flawed, as shown by the symmetry fallacy)

5. The Paradigm of Physical Space as an Elastic Medium: A New Framework

Our solution emerges from a radically different paradigm [1]. The fundamental principle is: Space itself is a three-dimensional physical medium with elastic, vibrating properties, not an empty void.

5.1. Immediate Consequences

• Absolute frame: The medium defines a privileged reference frame (though not directly observable)
• Wave-matter: Particles are standing wave packets in this medium
• Geometric deformation: Motion is a deformation state of the wave structure

5.2. Mechanistic Derivation of Time Dilation

• A particle at rest is a standing wave with proper frequency $f_0$
• In motion at speed v through the medium, its wave structure deforms
• To maintain coherence while translating through the medium at speed v, the particle’s internal standing wave structure deforms: wave paths that form closed loops when at rest relative to the medium become helices of pitch v as measured in the medium’s absolute frame.
• Result: as explained in the companion article [3], the frequency of internal processes can be directly deduced from the Pythagorean theorem. This frequency decreases according to

$$f={\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{\gamma \left(v\right)}}\mathrm{with}\gamma \left(v\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}$$

Proper time $\tau$ is not an abstract parameter: it is the physical count of cycles of the internal standing wave. This cycle count governs all internal physical phenomena within the particle and sets the rhythm for its interactions with the environment. When two particles with different absolute velocities interact, their different cycle counts manifest as different rates of all physical processes—from atomic decays to biological aging.

6. Resolution of the Paradox: Real Asymmetry in an Absolute Framework

6.1. The Standard Case (Traveling Twin vs. Stay-at-Home)

In our paradigm:

• The traveling twin has an absolute speed $v_{\mathrm{abs}}$ greater than Earth’s speed $V_{\oplus }$
• His $\gamma$ factor is therefore larger
• His aging $\Delta \tau =\int {\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\gamma \left(v_{\mathrm{abs}}\left(t\right)\right)}}$ is objectively smaller

The asymmetry comes from the asymmetry of absolute speeds, masked in the standard relativistic formalism.

6.2. The Symmetric Case (Critical Thought Experiment)

Consider the truly symmetric version:

• Two twins leave Earth in opposite directions at speed w relative to Earth
• They turn around simultaneously (according to Earth’s clock)
• They reunite on Earth

Prediction of standard relativity: Perfect symmetry → same age upon return.

Prediction of our paradigm: Asymmetry if $V_{\oplus }\ne 0$.

Let ${\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }$ be Earth’s velocity in the absolute medium. The absolute speeds are:

• Twin A: $|{\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }+\overrightarrow{w}|$
• Twin B: $|{\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }-\overrightarrow{w}|$

These two quantities are equal only if ${\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }·\overrightarrow{w}=0$ or $V_{\oplus }=0$. In general:

$$\Delta {\tau }_A\ne \Delta {\tau }_B$$

The twin whose trajectory is more aligned with $-{\overrightarrow{V}}_{\oplus }$ ages less.

7. Implications and Testable Predictions

7.1. A Falsifiable Test: The Orbiting Precision Clock

Proposed experimental test: A precision clock in orbit emits regular timing signals. General relativity predicts specific variations from relative motion and gravitational effects. our paradigm of physical space as an elastic medium predicts additional timing modulations linked to the satellite’s absolute velocity through the spatial medium. These would appear as characteristic diurnal and annual patterns whose phases reflect the solar system’s motion. By comparing measured timing variations with comprehensive relativistic calculations, any systematic residual following the predicted absolute motion signature would provide evidence for the spatial medium.

7.2. Another Falsifiable Test: Asymmetric H⁺/He⁺ Ion Collisions

Another decisive test exists: asymmetric relativistic ion collisions [5]. This experiment directly probes the ontological status of kinetic energy—is it an absolute property stored in individual particles (as our paradigm claims) or merely a frame-dependent mathematical quantity (as standard relativity claims)?

Experimental Design—Maximum Discrimination

The test compares two configurations with identical center-of-mass energies:

• Configuration A: Relativistic H⁺ ions (deformation energy carrier) collide with stationary He⁺ ions
• Configuration B: Relativistic He⁺ ions (deformation energy carrier) collide with stationary H⁺ ions

Standard Relativity Prediction—Perfect Symmetry

In standard relativity, kinetic energy is purely frame-dependent. The two configurations are physically equivalent because:

• The center-of-mass frames are identical (same total momentum)
• Kinetic energy is not a property of individual particles but of the system
• Lorentz invariance guarantees identical cross-sections and product spectra

Any observed asymmetry would violate the foundational principles of special relativity.

Our Paradigm Prediction—Measurable Asymmetry

In our framework, kinetic energy is real deformation energy stored in the wave structure of individual particles moving through the absolute medium. The two configurations are physically distinct because:

• In Configuration A, the deformation energy resides in the lighter H⁺ wave structure
• In Configuration B, the deformation energy resides in the heavier He⁺ wave structure

The key difference: for identical relative velocities in the laboratory, He⁺ carries ∼4 times more deformation energy than H⁺ because $E_{\mathrm{kin}}=(\gamma -1)m{c}^2$. At relativistic velocities, Earth’s motion through the medium is negligible; the dominant effect is this mass-dependent energy difference.

Consequence: When this deformation energy is released in collisions, configurations A and B yield different outcomes. He⁺-carried energy produces more/different secondary particles than H⁺-carried energy.

Why This Test is Decisively Falsifiable

• Mutually Exclusive Predictions: The two theories make opposite predictions—perfect symmetry vs. measurable asymmetry. There is no middle ground.
• No "Interpretation" Escape: Unlike philosophical debates, this yields quantitative, measurable outcomes. A null result is not "interpretable"—it directly falsifies our claim that kinetic energy is an absolute particle property.
• Tests Core Ontology: This is not testing a peripheral prediction but the central ontological claim distinguishing our paradigm: motion through an absolute medium deforms particle wave structures, storing kinetic energy as real deformation energy.
• Clean Theoretical Separation: Standard relativity predicts exact symmetry (cross-section ratio = 1.0000...). Our paradigm predicts measurable deviation (ratio $\ne 1$). Modern detectors can distinguish differences at the 1% level, providing clear discrimination.
• No Parameter Tuning: The prediction follows directly from first principles—no adjustable parameters can rescue a null result without abandoning the core premise.

Consequences of Experimental Outcomes

• Null Result (symmetry confirmed): Would falsify the absolute medium hypothesis. Kinetic energy would be confirmed as purely frame-dependent, supporting Einstein’s relational view. Our paradigm’s core mechanism would be invalidated.
• Positive Result (asymmetry detected): Would falsify the relativity principle as fundamental ontology. Would demonstrate that kinetic energy is indeed stored in individual particles, revolutionizing our understanding of motion, energy, and space itself.

This test represents the rare opportunity in foundational physics: a clean, decisive experiment that can settle a century-old ontological debate with existing technology.

However, the asymmetric ion collision test remains the most direct and falsifiable among these, as it isolates the core ontological difference between our paradigm and standard relativity.

8. Conclusions: Beyond a Century of Debates

The twin paradox has persisted for more than a century not for lack of a mathematical solution, but because it points to a deeper question: the nature of space and time.

Our paradigm, which redefines space as a physical elastic medium, offers:

• A mechanistic resolution: Proper time tracks the cycle count of internal standing waves, while length contraction arises from the geometric deformation of these wave patterns as their energy center moves through the medium. Both effects stem from the same physical cause: wave deformation corresponding to the motion of the wave packet’s energy center relative to the spatial medium.
• A fundamental asymmetry: Aging differences reflect different absolute speeds through the medium, not just relative velocities. The "symmetry" in standard relativity is an illusion that disappears when considering motion relative to a physical space.
• Testable predictions: Clear, falsifiable predictions that distinguish our approach from standard interpretation, most notably asymmetry in symmetric twin scenarios and in H⁺/He⁺ ion collisions.

The falsifiability of our paradigm through the asymmetric ion collision test represents its greatest strength. Unlike interpretations that remain in the realm of philosophy, our approach makes concrete, quantitative predictions that can be tested with existing technology. A positive result would not merely confirm our specific model but would revolutionize our understanding of motion, energy, and the nature of space itself. Conversely, a clear null result would provide strong evidence against the existence of an absolute medium and the reality of kinetic energy as a particle property.

The Path Forward: From Pragmatism to Physical Reality

For over a century, physics has tolerated the conceptual inconsistencies of pure relationalism because it provided a workable operational framework. Our paradigm offers an escape from this pragmatic compromise: it preserves all successful predictions of relativity while providing a coherent physical reality behind them. Most importantly, it makes decisive predictions—like asymmetric aging in "symmetric" twin scenarios and asymmetric outcomes in H⁺/He⁺ collisions—that can validate or falsify its core claims. We stand at a threshold where operational pragmatism can finally give way to ontological clarity, resolving not only the twin paradox but the deeper question of what motion truly is.

The debate on the twins was not sterile: it kept open the question of the physical reality underlying the equations. Our solution not only closes this century-old debate—it opens a new path for understanding matter, light, and forces as phenomena emerging from a vibrating, elastic space.

For the Complete Picture

This article focuses specifically on resolving the twin paradox within our physical space paradigm. The complete theoretical framework, including derivations of all relativistic effects from wave mechanics in an elastic medium, quantum foundations via the IN/OUT wave mechanism, and applications from particle physics to cosmology, is presented in our comprehensive synthesis [1]. Readers interested in the full research program are encouraged to consult this work, which references and synthesizes all our companion publications.