Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 1 of 230 (473556)
06-30-2008 4:57 PM


This is something that I have repeatedly read about, and I just cannot seem to understand it.
For those that don't know, the theory is that if you have two twins, and one gets on a ship and takes a trip at near-the-speed-of-light velocity... when they return to earth, they will have aged less than the other twin that stayed on the planet the whole time.
For purposes of discussion, I prefer the example of two identical watches that are synchronized, and one takes a similar journey as the twin mentioned above. According to the theory, when the two watches are brought back together, one should be chronologically behind the other.
Here's my problem... why is either watch affected by it's velocity? If we're talking about mechanical watches, wouldn't the gears that drive the motion of the watch continue to function appropriately regardless of where they're going or how fast they are getting there?
Furthermore, if we provide a specific frame of reference... let's say 1 earth-year... for the journey of our near-light-speed ship, wouldn't one year have passed for both watches? And therefore, shouldn't both watches reflect the same date and time when they are brough back together?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 06-30-2008 7:26 PM Jester4kicks has not replied
 Message 4 by fallacycop, posted 07-01-2008 3:01 AM Jester4kicks has not replied
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-01-2008 6:32 AM Jester4kicks has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2008 6:15 AM Jester4kicks has not replied
 Message 123 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-14-2009 4:23 AM Jester4kicks has not replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 36 of 230 (473847)
07-03-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Son Goku
07-02-2008 6:10 AM


Re: Calculation
Wow! Ok... I think I'm catching on!
I guess I had never thought about time in terms of distance... I always just thought it was more of a constant.
Now, before I get even more confused.... you mentioned a seconds->meters conversion. I believe it was 1 second = 300,000,000 meters.... however, you qualified it with the terms "temporal direction". I guess this is where I'm getting a little hung up. Does this mean that if something travels faster than 300,000,000 meters in 1 second... that it traveled faster than time?
I think I'm getting even more confused in my attempt to explain my confusion.
I love the equations... but in order for me to understand why an equation proves a scenario, I need to understand where the values in the equation came from. How did we determine that 1 second = 300,000,000 meters?
BTW, Thanks everyone! This is about the closest I've been to ever understanding this thing. I don't doubt that Einstein was right... but I've got this annoying curiousity that simply will not leave me alone until I understand WHY he was right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Son Goku, posted 07-02-2008 6:10 AM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 9:43 AM Jester4kicks has not replied
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 9:48 AM Jester4kicks has replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 45 of 230 (473897)
07-03-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
07-03-2008 9:48 AM


Re: Calculation
ROFL! I can't believe I didn't immediately make the connection with the 300,000,000 meters-> 1 second thing!
I think I'm getting closer to understanding this. Let me see if I can simplify it just a bit (understatement of the year).
You're saying we are always "traveling" at the speed of light... but that most of our "speed" is in the temporal direction. (Gonna be using a lot of terms like "speed" in completely the wrong way... so bear with me)
So... standing still:
Temporal speed (let's call it Ts) = 300,000,000 m/s
Spatial speed (let's call it Ss) = 0 m/s
Total speed = 300,000,000 m/s
Now... to over-simplify it even further... (and based on my understanding of your last post to indicate that we are always "traveling" at the speed of light)
Ts + Ss = Speed of light (300,000,000 m/s)
I REALLY hope I'm on the right track here... if I am, I now understand this... if I'm going in entirely the wrong direction, I'm screwed.
But... presuming I'm on-track here... as we increase our spatial "speed", we accordingly decrease our temporal "speed", so that the equation always equals 300,000,000 m/s. However, since our typical spatial speeds are so low, the impact on our temporal speed is virtually non-existent. However, if we got on our hypothetical space ship and traveled at NEAR the speed of light... in order for the equation to still equal 300,000,000 m/s, our temporal "speed" would need to be VERY low!
Example:
Ss = 295,000,000 m/s
Total speed = 300,000,000 m/s
295,000,000 m/s - Ts = 300,000,000
Ts = 5,000,000 m/s
Now... here's what I'm REALLY excited about... If I'm on track here, this also explains why faster-than-light travel is impossible... because it would either result in a negative temporal speed, or it would simply "break" the equation.
PLEASE say I'm right here... cause if so, you guys managed to explain something that I've never been able to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 9:48 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 2:27 PM Jester4kicks has replied
 Message 80 by mogplayer101, posted 05-26-2009 12:05 AM Jester4kicks has not replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 47 of 230 (473904)
07-03-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
07-03-2008 2:27 PM


Re: Calculation
Yeah, I knew my little formula was going to make you cringe... but I'm glad I got the meaning across.
Yes, it now makes perfect sense... for the first time in 10 years... it makes perfect sense.
Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 2:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 51 of 230 (477694)
08-06-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
07-03-2008 2:27 PM


Re: Calculation
Sorry to bring this back a full month later... but I tried explaining this to someone else in the relatively-simple terms that I have come to understand it in... and I ran into a question I couldn't answer.
When I explained about how we are all "traveling" through time at the speed of light, someone asked "how do you know that".
I didn't have an answer. The explanation that we got to in this thread still makes sense to me, but the explanation seems to rely on the idea that we are moving through time at the speed of light... and now I'm wondering how someone came to that conclusion.
Oh... and before anyone answers "because the speed of light is the fastest speed possible"... doesn't that conclusion rely on the relationship between spatial and temporal velocity that we discussed in this thread?
Bottom line, it seems like circular reasoning to me. I know there's got to be an answer here, but I can't figure out how anyone reached the conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 2:27 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2008 2:54 PM Jester4kicks has replied

  
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008


Message 53 of 230 (477696)
08-06-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by cavediver
08-06-2008 2:54 PM


Re: Calculation
You've got a pint?! I want a pint!
Let me see if I can at least narrow down the question.
Is there a reason that we currently think the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, without relying on the relationship between spatial velocity and temporal velocity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 08-06-2008 2:54 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024