Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Twins Paradox and the speed of light
boysherpa
Junior Member (Idle past 5372 days)
Posts: 19
From: Lomita, CA
Joined: 10-04-2008


Message 64 of 230 (485044)
10-04-2008 3:42 PM


why is this a paradox?
I have considered this and other so-called time paradox issues for many years. My major complaint with our view of time paradoxes is that we cannot test most of them. We really create these time paradoxes ourselves.
Not this issue - the twins "paradox". This has been, in a number of ways, verified. The GPS navigation system, for example, must account for this every nanosecond in order for you to have accurate clock and location data delivered to your navi-guesser (both high velocity and lower gravity influence the clock on the satellite relative to the NIST standard clocks). But, it is unclear what is really happening in terms of some separate concept called time.
It is clear that relative "time" between the observer on the ground and the satellite is what we are talking about (hence the term relativity). There are two questions, however. 1) What are the relative clock speeds, and 2) What _time_ is experienced by each clock. Note that these are not just semantic differences. Also note that the first is more related to the question of which twin has aged more, if you think of the body as a machine with only so many telomeric ticks in it.
So, a cool concept, which I encountered in a sci-fi novel, is the idea of living forever by being accelerated to near light speed. Is this a paradox? Can it actually occur? (setting aside the practical issues debate)
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. This seems to be a huge topic for discussion.
Edited by boysherpa, : typo

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2008 12:45 PM boysherpa has replied

  
boysherpa
Junior Member (Idle past 5372 days)
Posts: 19
From: Lomita, CA
Joined: 10-04-2008


Message 78 of 230 (485805)
10-11-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2008 12:45 PM


Re: why is this a paradox?
Thanks for the reply,
Read that post, nothing of the sort there. You may be confusing algebra with explanation.
I have quite a firm grip on these calculations. I am, actually, quite familiar with most things scientific. That is not my point. Let me list my observations, so that some of you could help.
1. Consider 3-space (x,y,z). A change in 3-space has two characteristics we will agree upon. The first is innocuous - a function f(x,y,z) describing a change in coordinates in 3-space is continuous. In other words, no magic teleportation. Second, and this is important, the function f(x,y,z), describing change in coordinates, instantiates time or necessitates the creation of time.
2. Examples of allowed changes in 3-space include: motion resulting in change in coordinate in a positive or negative direction relative starting point, a return to any previous coordinate desired, a wide range of velocities and accelarations decribing changes in coordinates.
4 (no, 3 sir). Consider the dimension of time. A change in this dimension is in no way similar to a change in 3-space. There is no instantiation of time with a change of time, if you follow my meaning. One may not move arbitrarily amongst time coordinates. There is no concept of time velocity or acceleration. In fact, there seems to be only one time coordinate, that being "present".
4. Finally, time has only one direction, an effect which we call causality, and this is firmly rooted in the space-time diagrams folks have interspersed among the posts in this thread. (It is therefore an inherent assumption in the calculations as well.) There is no corresponding restriction in 3-space.
So, I am confused about how time is considered on equal footing with 3-space. I fully understand the equations. Heck, I work with such mathematics more than most of you do. But I understand that models do not equal reality, and often do not explain reality.
It could be that if we accept all these caveats, that we may model space-time as including a psuedo-dimension called time. In this case, time as a dimension would merely be a convenient mathematical model. Is that what SR is saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2008 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 10-12-2008 5:43 AM boysherpa 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