Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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 replied

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 230 (473643)
07-01-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by cavediver
07-01-2008 12:43 PM


in the topsy turvy geometry of space-time, a wavy path must be SHORTER than the straight line.
Got a simple explanation for why this is the case?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Son Goku, posted 07-01-2008 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 28 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 230 (473663)
07-01-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Son Goku
07-01-2008 4:19 PM


I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
But I still don't see how traveling in the spatial deminsions can make the spacetime distance between two points SHORTER.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Son Goku, posted 07-01-2008 4:19 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by NosyNed, posted 07-01-2008 6:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 230 (473836)
07-03-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
07-02-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
So if you move around a lot, but arrive at Point B in space-time, then you had to have had spent less time doing it.
That makes sense.
Thanks randman!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 6:41 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 9:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 230 (473856)
07-03-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
07-03-2008 9:16 AM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
That makes sense.
Yes, Randman's idea does seem to make sense and sort of reproduces the desired effect. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with relativity and the twins "paradox". Multiplying 2 by 2 gives the correct answer 4, despite the question being "what do you get if you raise 2 to the power of 2?"...
I didn't understand him to be answering the actual "paradox". It was about how traveling in space can make the time distance shorter.
As I understand it, if you're traveling between two points in spacetime, you have a time component and a space component. The total distance between the two points is the same whether you move in space or not (because they are the same points regardless). So therefore, if you don't move through space then all of the distance is from the time component. However, if you do move through space, then the time component of the total distance must be less because the total distance remains the same.
That makes sense to me. Is it accurate?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 9:16 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 07-03-2008 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 10:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 230 (473865)
07-03-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by cavediver
07-03-2008 10:28 AM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
How does coordinate time differ from time experienced?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 10:28 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 10:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 230 (473874)
07-03-2008 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
07-03-2008 10:49 AM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
Time experienced is given by the ds term
So then it seems that it should be the same regardless of whether or not you travel though space.
The dt is coordinate time, and is merely a way of puting a chart or map down on space-time in order to make calculations
So then it seems that having the difference in the space component of the distance makes it so dt is less than if there was no space component.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2008 10:49 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by onifre, posted 07-03-2008 6:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


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

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

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 230 (485134)
10-05-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by boysherpa
10-04-2008 3:42 PM


Re: why is this a paradox?
It is clear to me that time is not a "dimension". Time is what clocks measure, but perhaps time does not exist outside of the context of clocks.
Did you read through this thread?
There's some great explanations on how time really is a dimension and it is not just a result of clocks measuring.
1) What are the relative clock speeds, and 2) What _time_ is experienced by each clock.
Maybe this post will help. Its #24 in this thread.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by boysherpa, posted 10-04-2008 3:42 PM boysherpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by boysherpa, posted 10-11-2008 8:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 230 (485135)
10-05-2008 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by onifre
07-07-2008 2:22 PM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
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.
Slown...
Then why aren't the twins the same age?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by onifre, posted 07-07-2008 2:22 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 10-05-2008 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 230 (485202)
10-06-2008 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
10-05-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
The stationary twin is traveling through more space, and time. The twin that is moving is traveling through less space, and time.
Wait... isn't it that:
The stationary twin is traveling through more less space so therefore more time and the moving twin is traveling through less more space so therefore less time.
Then we'd reach the same conclusion:
quote:
So the stationary twin, having traveled more time is older than the twin who traveled for less time.
because then, it make perfect sense to me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 10-05-2008 1:57 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 230 (485227)
10-06-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by onifre
10-06-2008 12:35 PM


Re: Here is the simple explanation....maybe
When you wrote:
quote:
The stationary twin is traveling through more space, and time. The twin that is moving is traveling through less space, and time.
I read that as:
"The stationary twin is traveling through more space and is traveling through more time."
Which I thought was counter to the discussion about this:
Where traveling through more space results in traveling through less time (but that was about speed).
Son Goku's equations yield a smaller distance in spacetime, which is what you were referring too so I got confused.
Anyway, I think its cleared up for me now.
CS writes:
because then, it make perfect sense to me
That's all I ever aim to do.
That very honorable. I do too, but that's not all
sometimes its just too much fun to rile up the liberals

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 12:35 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 10-06-2008 11:41 PM New Cat's Eye 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