Need a little help on special relativity.

Hessian
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I would like to clarify a few special relativity questions that i cannot quite grasp.

1. There are two people on earth, person number one person is on a spaceship and is ready to take off at near the speed of light. Person number two is standing near the spaceship and will watch person number one take off.
Now, the person watching the spaceship is (who is at rest in his frame of referance) watching a clock that is on the spaceship, as soon as the ship takes of at near the speed of light he will see the clock running a lot slower than his own clock correct? But will he see the ship moving at near the speed of light? Or will he see the ship moving in synch with the slowed down clock, in other words will he see the ship moving very slow, or it may seem to him that the ship is stuck in the air?
And the same question vice versa. Person number one on the spaceship see's person number two's clock running incredibally fast, but will he also see person number two moving incredibally fast or will he still be moving at his normal speed and only person number two's clock (or time) is moving fast to him.
Maybe this wil explain to me why i never understood how the twins paradox was actually a paradox!

2. One person is living on a rogue planet moving at near the speed of light, But in his opinion he is at rest. So if he looks down at a clock on Earth as he passes by, will he see it moving a lot faster than his own clock or will it appear to be running the same as his own clock.

Thanks for your time, and i am sorry if these topics have already been done to death.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hessian said:
Hi, I would like to clarify a few special relativity questions that i cannot quite grasp.

1. There are two people on earth, person number one person is on a spaceship and is ready to take off at near the speed of light. Person number two is standing near the spaceship and will watch person number one take off.
Now, the person watching the spaceship is (who is at rest in his frame of referance) watching a clock that is on the spaceship, as soon as the ship takes of at near the speed of light he will see the clock running a lot slower than his own clock correct? But will he see the ship moving at near the speed of light? Or will he see the ship moving in synch with the slowed down clock, in other words will he see the ship moving very slow, or it may seem to him that the ship is stuck in the air?
He won't see the velocity slow down as the ship accelerates...the v in the time dilation equation is the actual velocity you measure.
Hessian said:
And the same question vice versa. Person number one on the spaceship see's person number two's clock running incredibally fast, but will he also see person number two moving incredibally fast
Fast? No, it doesn't work that way--there is no such thing as absolute speed in relativity, only relative speed, so since the twin on the ship measures the Earth to be traveling at high speed relative to his own rest frame, the Earth's clocks will be running slow in the ship's frame.
Hessian said:
Maybe this wil explain to me why i never understood how the twins paradox was actually a paradox!
See above, the "paradox" has to do with the fact that in each observer's rest frame, it is the other observer's clock that's running slow. The key to resolving it is that this reciprocity only works when comparing inertial rest frames, but the twin that moves away and then returns to Earth has to accelerate, so his inertial rest frame on the return journey is different than his inertial rest frame on the outward journey.
Hessian said:
2. One person is living on a rogue planet moving at near the speed of light
Again, all speed is relative, so you can't say the planet is "moving at near the speed of light" in absolute terms, only relative to something else (like the Earth).
Hessian said:
But in his opinion he is at rest. So if he looks down at a clock on Earth as he passes by, will he see it moving a lot faster than his own clock or will it appear to be running the same as his own clock.
Again, he'll measure it running slower, since in his frame he's at rest and the Earth is moving at near the speed of light. (Note that asking what he'll measure is different than asking what he'll see, because vision is affected by the Doppler effect as well as time dilation...what you measure is what happens once you correct for the fact that different signals from a moving object take a different amount of time to reach you because the object's distance from you is changing.)
 
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me, I appreciate it. I think am beginning to understand.
 
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