Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 04-20-2018 12:44 PM
302 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 296 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 830,276 Year: 5,099/29,783 Month: 1,031/1,467 Week: 228/462 Day: 15/42 Hour: 2/1

Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 46 of 230 (473903) 07-03-2008 2:27 PM Reply to: Message 45 by Jester4kicks07-03-2008 1:37 PM

Re: Calculation
 Now... to over-simplify it even further... Ts + Ss = Speed of light (300,000,000 m/s)

Make it

Ts2 + Ss2 = c2

and you'd be almost there (c is the speed of light) although it's a complete bastardisation of how we write these things :)

 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.

And now we have the "squared" version of your equation, you can't even consider a negative Ts - the equation is simply sharing out your speed-of-light velocity between the spatial and temporal components...

So we have shown that "faster than the speed of light" is a nonsense concept, can you start to see where time dilation comes from now?

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 45 by Jester4kicks, posted 07-03-2008 1:37 PM Jester4kicks has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 47 by Jester4kicks, posted 07-03-2008 2:29 PM cavediver has not yet responded Message 51 by Jester4kicks, posted 08-06-2008 2:40 PM cavediver has responded Message 59 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 5:31 AM cavediver has responded

Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3236 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008

 Message 47 of 230 (473904) 07-03-2008 2:29 PM Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver07-03-2008 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 yet responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 691 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 48 of 230 (473926) 07-03-2008 6:10 PM Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye07-03-2008 11:30 AM

Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
 But if experienced time, ds, is the same between the two spacetime coordinates regardless of the space component of the distance, then how can traveling through space affect the experienced time?

CS, in my attempt to understand it I'll try to answer you.

Experienced time is the same *at* the 2 space-time coordinates, not between them.

The affect of traveling is only relative to the one observing, to the one traveling the time hasn't been affected.

In the attempt to connect the traveler with the observer, given that the observers time is the one that we are going by, time dilation comes into play.

The way I understand it is that its *experienced* time, not an actual time change.

I think...

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

 This message is a reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-03-2008 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-04-2008 1:35 PM onifre has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 49 of 230 (474017) 07-04-2008 1:35 PM Reply to: Message 48 by onifre07-03-2008 6:10 PM

Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
 CS, in my attempt to understand it I'll try to answer you.

Yeah, maybe we can get this one smoked down together.

 Experienced time is the same *at* the 2 space-time coordinates, not between them.

/nod

 The affect of traveling is only relative to the one observing, to the one traveling the time hasn't been affected.

Then why is his twin older than him?

 In the attempt to connect the traveler with the observer, given that the observers time is the one that we are going by, time dilation comes into play.

So, its not that the traveling really affects the time experienced, its only that time dilation occurs to the stationary twin's observation because the other one is moving?

 I think...

Don't hurt yourself :D

 This message is a reply to: Message 48 by onifre, posted 07-03-2008 6:10 PM onifre has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 50 by onifre, posted 07-07-2008 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 691 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008

 Message 50 of 230 (474307) 07-07-2008 2:22 PM Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye07-04-2008 1:35 PM

Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
 So, its not that the traveling really affects the time experienced, its only that time dilation occurs to the stationary twin's observation because the other one is moving?

The time dilation would only exist if the clock for measuring time is at the observers end. The clock in the twins shuttle will not have slown down.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

 This message is a reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-04-2008 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2008 12:49 PM onifre has responded

Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3236 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008

 Message 51 of 230 (477694) 08-06-2008 2:40 PM Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver07-03-2008 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 responded

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

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 52 of 230 (477695) 08-06-2008 2:54 PM Reply to: Message 51 by Jester4kicks08-06-2008 2:40 PM

Re: Calculation
 When I explained about how we are all "traveling" through time at the speed of light, someone asked "how do you know that".

It is simply what relativity shows us, and relativity (in its Special form) is the most successfully tested theory we have ever discovered, so we tend to trust what it tells us :) To understand it at a deepr level, I'm afraid it is time for four-dimensional vectors and tensors - all good fun, but not the easiest mathematics to explain over a pint...

 This message is a reply to: Message 51 by Jester4kicks, posted 08-06-2008 2:40 PM Jester4kicks has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 53 by Jester4kicks, posted 08-06-2008 3:09 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 3236 days)
Posts: 33
Joined: 06-17-2008

 Message 53 of 230 (477696) 08-06-2008 3:09 PM Reply to: Message 52 by cavediver08-06-2008 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 yet responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 54 of 230 (480330) 09-02-2008 3:32 PM Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver07-03-2008 9:48 AM

Re: Calculation
"All things travel at the speed of light *ALL THE TIME* - it's just that mostly we travel in the temporal direction, so we don't notice anything other than time passing. What we call *speed*, is us rotating our speed-of-light velocity slightly out of the temporal direction and slightly into the spatial durections. The most *speed* we can ever achieve is what we get by rotating our speed-of-light velocity completely into the spatial directions... and surprise surprise, we see the greatest *speed* is the speed of light. Our velocity is ALWAYS the speed of light - so it is impossible to talk about going *faster*, just as it is impossible to talk about going *slower*"

That is perfectly correct and in my opinion a good explanation, everything that exists is in motion, strangely even Quantum [Bosonic] Fields;)

Edited by V-Bird, : Accuracy.

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

 Replies to this message: Message 55 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2008 4:18 PM V-Bird has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 55 of 230 (480447) 09-03-2008 4:18 PM Reply to: Message 54 by V-Bird09-02-2008 3:32 PM

Re: Calculation
 everything that exists is in motion, strangely even Quantum [Bosonic] Fields

Of course the quantum fields are not in motion - what the hell does that even mean?? The fields are at a much more fundemental level than any concept of motion. It's the same as claiming that electrons have smell. You really do have absolutely no clue about any of this...

 This message is a reply to: Message 54 by V-Bird, posted 09-02-2008 3:32 PM V-Bird has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 56 by V-Bird, posted 09-03-2008 6:20 PM cavediver has responded

V-Bird
Member (Idle past 3326 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004

 Message 56 of 230 (480468) 09-03-2008 6:20 PM Reply to: Message 55 by cavediver09-03-2008 4:18 PM

Re: Calculation
Because motion is not 3 dimensional, motion is 4 dimensional, everything that exists is in motion and is therefore at fundament, energy.

All motion is the fundamental property of all energy.

Hope this helps.

 This message is a reply to: Message 55 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2008 4:18 PM cavediver has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 57 by cavediver, posted 09-03-2008 6:27 PM V-Bird has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 57 of 230 (480471) 09-03-2008 6:27 PM Reply to: Message 56 by V-Bird09-03-2008 6:20 PM

Re: Calculation
 Hope this helps.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 This message is a reply to: Message 56 by V-Bird, posted 09-03-2008 6:20 PM V-Bird has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 62 by V-Bird, posted 09-04-2008 7:17 AM cavediver has not yet responded

johnfolton
Suspended Member (Idle past 3332 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005

 Message 58 of 230 (480500) 09-04-2008 4:40 AM

With E=mc2 in respect to the twin paradox and the speedlimit of light.

If the entire universe is relative to the speedlimit of light then the traveller is not violating the speedlimit of light in the expansion of the heavens if its only the observer that has moved forward in time.

P.S. Maybe string theory will prove E=mc2 fits string theory better than atomic theory? Though a whole lot of energy was released through the atomic bomb thru aggitation? Heck there is a whole lot of energy just when one alpha particle is expelled. To say no motion when neutrons have momentum and energy as do protons, etc...Think when they say E=mc2 has no momentum energy is just a play on words like an Enron accountant cancelling out until he has nothing because a whole lot of radioactive elements are decaying and the energy given off thru decay is caused by mass having momentum and thats energy. There is talk of making batteries for labtops from the energy given off thru the momentum of radioactive decay.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

RickJB
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006

 Message 59 of 230 (480502) 09-04-2008 5:31 AM Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver07-03-2008 2:27 PM

Re: Calculation
Like this?

 Click to enlarge

Sorry for the crappy MSPaint graphs!

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

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

 Replies to this message: Message 60 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2008 6:36 AM RickJB has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005

 Message 60 of 230 (480506) 09-04-2008 6:36 AM Reply to: Message 59 by RickJB09-04-2008 5:31 AM

Re: Calculation
Yes, that's the idea. Though the units are a bit confused, as we don't measure distance through time in meters but in seconds :)

Note that I am glossing over a few bits with this picture. If I have some at some stage I may try to elucidate, but it does get a bit more confusing :)

 This message is a reply to: Message 59 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 5:31 AM RickJB has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 61 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 6:43 AM cavediver has not yet responded Message 63 by RickJB, posted 09-04-2008 8:20 AM cavediver has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 16 Next FF