How Does the Twin Paradox Illustrate Time Dilation in Relativity?

blackwizard
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Iv been reading the fabric of the cosmos and its my 1st and only source on theoretical physics. I reckon i understand str from it, i can work spacetime diagrams and lorentz transforms but my understanding must b wrong somewhere.

Str says the faster an object moves the slower time flows for it. let's say 2 objects are movin at v m/s relative 2 each other. Object A looks at B and says I am stationary and ur movin at v m/s so time shud flow slower for u. Object B looks at A and says no I am stationary and ur movin at v, time flows slower for u.

I also can't see how 1 can be right since their is no difference between them
 
Physics news on Phys.org
blackwizard said:
Str says the faster an object moves the slower time flows for it.
STR says that the clocks in a moving frame run slower as measured by observers in the "nonmoving" frame. The faster the moving frame moves with respect to the "nonmoving" frame, the greater the effect. But in its own frame, the "moving" clock operates just like it always does. (After all, we are moving with respect to some other frame right now--do you feel time running any slower? :wink: )

And yes, the effects of relativity (on clocks and metersticks) are completely symmetric. If B is moving with respect to A, they each measure the other's clocks as running slowly compared to their own.
 
Class! They're both right is an answer i should hav assumed.

"they each measure the other's clocks as running slowly compared to their own" was what i thought there was a problem with.

Thanks
 
blackwizard said:
"they each measure the other's clocks as running slowly compared to their own" was what i thought there was a problem with.

that's sort of what the "twin paradox" is about.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top