Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 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
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 123 of 230 (535254)
11-14-2009 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jester4kicks
06-30-2008 4:57 PM


Paradox within a paradox
I enjoy this discussion, but as in everything in life, one must approach all "facts" with some skepticism. Here is a paradox I have with this paradox: If someone cares to answer it, (preferably without math formulas) I would be most grateful:
Premise: When one object is accelerating it will experience time slower relative to an object not accelerating.
So, what if the object (one of the twins in this case) is simply going in circles around the other twin, and they can see each other?
What if one of the twins is not changing his orientation at all, but is simply spinning on a fixed axis at close to the speed of light, is the parts on his body furthest from the axis experiencing time at a different rate from the parts of his body closer to the axis (which are obviously moving slower)?
Take it another step further...the object that is moving is a pocket-watch-does the way in which it is moving matter? Can it be spinning around an axis? How about if you could stare at the center of the face of the pocket-watch, but the numbers are spinning clockwise (or counterclockwise if you prefer)?
And what if it is just part of the watch that is accelerating, like a ring around the outside of it? Can parts of the watch age more while other parts age less?
And to take it even one step further if I may. What if one of the twins (or a watch) is simply vibrating at close to the speed of light, will it experience time differently than the twin not vibrating, even though they have not moved apart from each other at all? It is after all moving while it is being vibrated, correct?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : Grammar, ..poor eyesight

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Iblis, posted 11-14-2009 5:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 12-03-2009 11:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 183 of 230 (680063)
11-17-2012 12:57 PM


Paradox within a paradox
I enjoy this discussion, but as in everything in life, one must approach all "facts" with some skepticism. Here is a paradox I have with this paradox: If someone cares to answer it, (preferably without math formulas) I would be most grateful:
Premise: When one object is accelerating it will experience time slower relative to an object not accelerating.
So, what if the object (one of the twins in this case) is simply going in circles around the other twin, and they can see each other?
What if one of the twins is not changing his orientation at all, but is simply spinning on a fixed axis at close to the speed of light, is the parts on his body furthest from the axis experiencing time at a different rate from the parts of his body closer to the axis (which are obviously moving slower)?
Take it another step further...the object that is moving is a pocket-watch-does the way in which it is moving matter? Can it be spinning around an axis? How about if you could stare at the center of the face of the pocket-watch, but the numbers are spinning clockwise (or counterclockwise if you prefer)?
And what if it is just part of the watch that is accelerating, like a ring around the outside of it? Can parts of the watch age more while other parts age less?
And to take it even one step further if I may. What if one of the twins (or a watch) is simply vibrating at close to the speed of light, will it experience time differently than the twin not vibrating, even though they have not moved apart from each other at all? It is after all moving while it is being vibrated, correct?
A long time ago I asked this question, and the replies I got had to do with acceleration and deceleration as being the reason why a circular path is not equal to a linear path.
This seems to be an incorrect answer to my question, as according to this article Blog | Earthlink: Special relativity says nothing about acceleration or deceleration, but is simply concerned with the speed of the reference frame. It doesn't matter how it obtains that speed.
So I am wondering if anyone cares to give it another shot. What is the difference between traveling in a circle (or even just spinning around and axis), and traveling in a straight line according to the theory of relativity?

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 1:46 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 3:54 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 186 of 230 (680159)
11-18-2012 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by NoNukes
11-17-2012 3:54 PM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
Nonukes, thanks for the attempt, but I am not sure you really read very clearly what I am questioning. You simply referred me back to an explanation of the twins paradox, without addressing the circling or direction problem with the paradox.
When I first proposed the problem with the twins paradox, I mentioned that the twins don't need to separate at all in order for one to move at or near the speed of light. One could just be spinning in a circle around the other, and thus still remain in the same approximate vectors. They could both look at the same clock.
Now Iblis tried to make the claim that because twin number 2 was moving in a circular direction, and thus was decelerating as much as he was accelerating, so that would nullify the effects of time dilation. But that is just false, and a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity.
Acceleration has nothing to do with it, it merely deals with the speed, it doesn't matter how it achieved that speed, the history of accelerating or decelerating before it achieved any speed is irrelevant.
From what I now understand, Einstein wasn't even able to answer the question of the twins paradox. It appears to just be a completely fabricated fun scientific exercise, with no basis in fact. Just anther way of playing with numbers, to create false ideas. That is why many try to restrict the paradox to one direction, because it makes it appear to satisfy a formula. But why only one direction, nobody can seem to explain that other then it is just convenient for making a paradox.
And as a side point, if all things are relative when considering speed, and one can always reverse which is the moving object, and which is the object at rest when comparing two frames of reference, why in my example can only one experience g force? In other words, if both are moving relative to the other, why does the twin circling feel g force, while the twin being circled feel nothing? It seems only one can be said to be truly moving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 3:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 5:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 9:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 188 of 230 (680161)
11-18-2012 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by NoNukes
11-17-2012 3:54 PM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
In reading what you wrote again, I guess you did try to address the question of circular motion, but I still believe it is not answered adequately enough. I am having a hard time understanding why inertial and non inertial frames of reference would effect ones outcome in spacetime. Why does the the twins paradox become invalid once we remove single inertial frames? Isn't it simply because we have a cute little math formula which gets bugged up once we scrutinize it?
What are the reality of physics that allows one inertial frame to cause a paradox of time, while a shifted inertial frame invalidates the outcome?
In other words, aren't we throwing in these conditions of single inertial frames just for the sake of protecting the math formula, without any other valid reason for doing so?
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 3:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 5:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 194 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 9:22 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 190 of 230 (680164)
11-18-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by cavediver
11-18-2012 5:35 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
cavediver,
Do you wish to make a wager as to whether or not Einstein believed he was able to satisfactorily answer the twins paradox problem?
Secondly, why does an accelerated-decelerated path necessary become a curved path?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 5:35 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 6:51 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 192 of 230 (680169)
11-18-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by cavediver
11-18-2012 6:51 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
First, I suppose we could use quotes by Einstein himself, that display his own doubts about solving the twins paradox, if that suits you. Really, I thought you did this for a living, I would hate to embarrass you by having an uneducated fop like me, show you the emptiness of your arrogance.
Secondly, so if we have acceleration and declaration as part of the equation of the paradox, then the paradox becomes invalid, because it no longer deals with Special Relativity? And we can't accelerate and decelerate in a straight line, because by definition acceleration and deceleration is curved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 6:51 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 7:27 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 196 of 230 (680180)
11-18-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by NoNukes
11-18-2012 9:44 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
Now hold on a minute, are you claiming there would be an age difference between the twins if there was acceleration involved in one of the twins velocity, or if there is no acceleration but just constant velocity or in both cases?
Cavediver is supposed to be an expert in this field, and he can't seem to even answer this in English, so maybe you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 9:44 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 10:33 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 198 of 230 (680183)
11-18-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by cavediver
11-18-2012 7:27 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
Well, you can try. Of course, there would by necessity be times when he would be unsure - sure as before he had even entertained Special Relativity, and around the time that the apparent clock paradox (as he termed it) first occured to him. But I'm sure you have something much more concrete than that...
At first you come out saying that it is crap to suggest that Einstein wasn't satisfied with answering this problem, and now you meekly assert that yes, he may have had doubts at times, but that he answered it successfully many times, when in fact you know full well he had doubts about this issue up until his deathbed. I mean come on cavediver, if you call yourself a scientist, why don't you even attempt to discuss in an honest fashion. Einstein repeatedly stated that he wasn't sure that relativity could be applied to real life physical events. In 1921 he said:
"The idea of the measuring rod and the idea of the clock coordinated with it in the theory of relativity do not find their exact correspondence in the real world. It is also clear that the solid body and the clock do not in the conceptual edifice of physics play the part of irreducible elements, but that of composite structures, which may not play any independent part in theoretical physics."
The thing is you know this, of course. And yet you still feel the need to try to win your point by acting like its preposterous to suggest that Einstein wasn't comfortable with an answer to this. Its such a childish position you take, as if all you really care about it trying to appear correct, instead of trying to be truthful. Is your argument so weak, that you feel the need to create false ones. Do you seek to provide honest answers, or are you just here to try to show your manhood? Because its not very authentic or scientific of you. I think you just do it on purpose to be adversarial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 7:27 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 11:05 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 199 of 230 (680185)
11-18-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by cavediver
11-18-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
Then answer the question, will the twins have different ages if one is traveling only at a constant speed, or if one is traveling at an accelerated speed, or in both cases?
Call it A, B, or C, which is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 10:33 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 11:13 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 201 of 230 (680193)
11-18-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by cavediver
11-18-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
A, B, or C cavediver. Its multiple choice. A, B or C?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 11:05 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 203 of 230 (680200)
11-18-2012 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by cavediver
11-18-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
Far too vague? Its FAR too vague? Ok, how is this:
I will make them numbers, since you are not as good with letters:
1. The twin who sets out on a journey is at constant velocity, until he reaches his turn around point, he then suddenly stops is accelerated back to the same velocity which is near the speed of light, in approximately one half second, then he continues all the way back at a constant velocity back to the other twin.
2. The twin accelerates the entire time to time a half way point, turns around and accelerates all the way back to the twin at the same speed as in the case of number one, near the speed of light. Always accelerating.
In scenarios 1 or 2, are they the same age, or different ages when they meet up (not counting the half second that he accelerated to near the speed of light in case number 1) ?
3. They each have a clock starting with the same time. One of the twins begins a journey at a constant velocity, near the speed of light, but they never meet again. Do the clocks remain the same from the standpoint of a third party observer with good eyes who always remains exactly half way between the two twins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 11:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 1:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 209 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2012 3:44 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 204 of 230 (680201)
11-18-2012 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by cavediver
11-18-2012 11:13 AM


Re: Twin paradox space time diagram
And here is another option:
1. One of the twins remains on earth, while another twin is accelerated on a giant circle near the speed of light for ten years and ends up back at earth. When he returns are the twins the same age or different? If different who is younger?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 11:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 1:16 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 205 of 230 (680203)
11-18-2012 12:19 PM


Also I am very curious cavediver. In your initial answer to this question:
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!
You don't mention anything about acceleration, do you? Were you intentionally being far too vague? How could you answer this question without knowing if they were accelerating or not?

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2012 1:27 PM Bolder-dash 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