Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 6:07 PM
389 online now:
14174dm, Asgara (AdminAsgara), CRR, edge, kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, ramoss, Stile, Tangle (10 members, 379 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,015 Year: 13,621/21,208 Month: 3,103/3,605 Week: 445/933 Day: 34/56 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
Jester4kicks
Junior Member (Idle past 2907 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 yet responded
 Message 4 by fallacycop, posted 07-01-2008 3:01 AM Jester4kicks has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-01-2008 6:32 AM Jester4kicks has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2008 6:15 AM Jester4kicks has not yet responded
 Message 123 by Bolder-dash, posted 11-14-2009 4:23 AM Jester4kicks has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 230 (473570)
06-30-2008 6:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1054 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 3 of 230 (473574)
06-30-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jester4kicks
06-30-2008 4:57 PM


why is either watch affected by it's velocity?

They're not. They are simply ticking as normal - but they are being taken on different length paths through space-time. The one that takes the shorter path naturally ticks less, and hence appears younger when the two watches get back together and are compared. The length of a path through space-time equals the time experienced along that path. But space-time is strange - the *longest* (space-time) distance between two points is a straight line!!

Pick two points in space-time: say P1 is Time's Square 00:00:00 1st Jan 2000; and P2 is Time's Square 00:00:00 1st Jul 2008. So sitting still in Time's square in order to get from P1 to P2 is the LONGEST space-time path between these points. Any other path will be shorter! Repeatedly flying back and forth from JFK to Sydney to get from P1 to P2 will be slightly shorter than staying still, so your watch (and your heart) will tick slightly less on this journey - although almost immeasurably less. Travelling out to Alpha Centauri and back at just under the speed of light will just about get you from P1 to P2 and that path will be much much shorter than sitting still, and so your watch will tick considerably less seconds on this path - perhaps only a few days' worth!! So a watch left to sit still between P1 and P2 will tick away 8.5 years, and your watch on your space-trip may only tick away one week!

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jester4kicks, posted 06-30-2008 4:57 PM Jester4kicks has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2008 11:39 AM cavediver has responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 4 of 230 (473593)
07-01-2008 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jester4kicks
06-30-2008 4:57 PM


According to the theory, when the two watches are brought back together, one should be chronologically behind the other.

It's worthwile mentioning that the theory has been experimentaly tested and confirmed.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jester4kicks, posted 06-30-2008 4:57 PM Jester4kicks has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 5 of 230 (473597)
07-01-2008 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jester4kicks
06-30-2008 4:57 PM


twin
Any particular reason why they need to be twins?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jester4kicks, posted 06-30-2008 4:57 PM Jester4kicks has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-01-2008 6:46 AM Brian has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15625
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 6 of 230 (473599)
07-01-2008 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
07-01-2008 6:32 AM


Re: twin
The twins conundrum didn't originate with Jester4kicks, so I doubt he knows the answer. My own guess is that there's a certain ironic appeal in contriving a situation where twins are no longer the same age.

When I promoted the thread I was hoping that another question would get answered in passing. If it is the path through space/time that governs how much time ticks by, and if from the point of view of twin A the other twin B traveled a few light years out and back, while from the point of view of twin B it was twin A who traveled a few light years out and back, then how come the twins are no longer the same age when they're again together.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 07-01-2008 6:32 AM Brian has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Son Goku, posted 07-01-2008 9:03 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Agobot
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 7 of 230 (473600)
07-01-2008 6:57 AM


Watches
Why wouldn't both the watch on Earth and the the one on the spaceship have indicated the same time had passed - namely 1 year? I believe, however, that the watch on the spaceship, having been calibrated here on Earth, will not show accurate time on the spaceship travelling at near the speed of light.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 07-01-2008 7:09 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3500
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 8 of 230 (473601)
07-01-2008 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Agobot
07-01-2008 6:57 AM


Re: Watches
The watch on the spaceship will show accurate time passed. This isn't an illusionary effect; the watch on the spaceship will actually have undergone less time than the watch on the Earth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Agobot, posted 07-01-2008 6:57 AM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1067
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 9 of 230 (473609)
07-01-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
07-01-2008 6:46 AM


Re: twin
The basic answer is that the twin that went in the rocket has to accelerate to turn around and head back to Earth. Even though velocity is relative, acceleration is absolute. That is everybody will agree which twin is accelerating and which one isn't. This acceleration introduces an absolutely agreed upon difference in their paths through spacetime which is responsible for one being younger than the other when they are reunited.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-01-2008 6:46 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11347
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 230 (473618)
07-01-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by cavediver
06-30-2008 7:26 PM


Repeatedly flying back and forth from JFK to Sydney to get from P1 to P2 will be slightly shorter than staying still,

How does flying back and forth make the space-time path shorter?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by cavediver, posted 06-30-2008 7:26 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2008 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1054 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 11 of 230 (473626)
07-01-2008 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
07-01-2008 11:39 AM


How does flying back and forth make the space-time path shorter?

Because the journey is not a striaght line through space-time, but is weaving about. Just like in everyday life: a wavy path between two points must be LONGER than the straight line; in the topsy turvy geometry of space-time, a wavy path must be SHORTER than the straight line.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2008 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brian, posted 07-01-2008 12:54 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 07-01-2008 1:00 PM cavediver has not yet responded
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-01-2008 2:15 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 2370 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 12 of 230 (473627)
07-01-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by cavediver
07-01-2008 12:43 PM


Best reply ever

:laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2008 12:43 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 362 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 13 of 230 (473628)
07-01-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by cavediver
07-01-2008 12:43 PM


The GPS's atomic clock is affected by this also right?


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 11 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2008 12:43 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2008 1:28 PM onifre has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8776
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 14 of 230 (473633)
07-01-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by onifre
07-01-2008 1:00 PM


An alternate view??? (cavediver to check)
The GPS's atomic clock is affected by this also right?

I want to try something and get CD to check if it makes sense.

You wouldn't ask this question if we said that no clocks are "affected" by this. They all tick along keeping perfectly good time within their frame of reference.

However, relativity theory has to transform between the different frames of reference and that produces different numerical values for a "tick" as you transform space and time variables. Neither clock (on earth or in the GPS satellites) are changed. But the calculations to compare them to one another (in whichever reference frame you pick) changes the numbers attached.

Does that make any sense?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by onifre, posted 07-01-2008 1:00 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2008 1:36 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 07-02-2008 11:52 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1054 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 230 (473634)
07-01-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
07-01-2008 1:28 PM


Re: An alternate view??? (cavediver to check)
Does that make any sense?

Perfectly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2008 1:28 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
16NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017