I Lorentz Contraction & Twin Paradox

Mickey1
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Does Lorentz contraction point to the twin paradox
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?

Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mickey1 said:
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?
I don't know.
Mickey1 said:
Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.

In its simplest form, the twin paradox is the analogy in Minkowski geometry of the triangle inequality in Euclidean geometry. More generally, the proper time that elapses along the worldline of an object is equivalent to the invariant spacetime distance along the worldline.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, malawi_glenn, topsquark and 1 other person
Mickey1 said:
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?
Well, length contraction alone won't get you there (and I don't think a theory with length contraction alone would really be self-consistent). Lorentz actually derived the Lorentz transforms, which are the mathematical core of relativity, before Einstein. As far as I know, though, he believed them to be just a mathematical fix for Maxwell's equations, so something that was only relevant to electromagnetic waves and fields and the like, until shown otherwise by Einstein.

So Lorentz had the maths to set up the twin paradox, but not the conceptual framework in which to think of it. So in answer to your question I'd say "maybe, it kinda depends what you think of as Lorentz's work".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and PeroK
Mickey1 said:
Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.

If you refer to Lorentz contraction, you are referring to something that's a part of relativity. Likewise for time dilation.
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
According to the General Theory of Relativity, time does not pass on a black hole, which means that processes they don't work either. As the object becomes heavier, the speed of matter falling on it for an observer on Earth will first increase, and then slow down, due to the effect of time dilation. And then it will stop altogether. As a result, we will not get a black hole, since the critical mass will not be reached. Although the object will continue to attract matter, it will not be a...
Back
Top