Not able to fully understand what im reading

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hiram_sua
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of time dilation as illustrated by the twin paradox in the context of special relativity. Participants explore the implications of traveling at or near the speed of light and the resulting differences in aging between twins, one of whom travels while the other remains stationary. The conversation includes technical explanations and personal reflections on understanding these concepts without prior physics education.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about why one twin ages more than the other when traveling at high speeds, indicating a lack of formal physics education.
  • Another participant explains the historical context of the speed of light and its invariance, referencing Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transformations as a resolution to the issues faced by classical physics.
  • This participant also introduces the concept of time dilation, suggesting that time slows down for the traveling twin, leading to different aging rates.
  • A third participant challenges the notion of needing a deeper "why" behind time dilation, suggesting that some aspects of physics simply operate based on observed phenomena rather than intuitive logic.
  • There is a reference to the Galilean relativity and the assumptions that led to its incorrectness, emphasizing that the constancy of the speed of light is a fundamental aspect of modern physics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the deeper "why" behind time dilation, with some suggesting that it may not be satisfactorily explained beyond observation. There are competing views on the necessity of understanding the underlying principles versus accepting the phenomena as they are observed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of understanding complex physics concepts without a foundational background, as well as the reliance on assumptions in classical versus modern physics. There are unresolved questions regarding the intuitive grasp of these principles.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the foundational concepts of relativity, time dilation, and the philosophical implications of physical laws may find this discussion beneficial.

hiram_sua
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
hello everyone, this is my first post on these forums. yesterday i was at the local B&N and bought stephen hawkings "a brief history of time". I've never taken a physics course, though I've wanted to in past semesters(without calculus) but it has always interested me. in the space-time chapter i read about the infamous relativity and twins paradox. what i don't understand is WHY one twin ages more than the other merely by jetting at or nearly the speed of light. I am sure there's an easy answer but being that I've never taken a course of the subject i feel lost. any help is greatly appreciated. thanks in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A dumby like me can help dumb down the explanation for you! Basically, one of the problems facing physics around the turn of the 19th/20th century (whichever 1900 was) was how to explain the invariance of maxwells equations. Simply, the laws of electromagneticism said that the speed of light is always 300,000,000 meters per second. The problem with this is simple enough. If you ever driven a car at say, 50mph and shot a gun that fired a bullet at 500mph, you would realize that the bullet, from a person stationary watching the car go by, would see the bullet go 50+500 = 550 miles per hour. The problem here is that this does not work with light. If you traveled say, 100,000 meters per second down a road and sent off a beam of light, you would expect a stationary person to see it go 300,100,000 meters per second but this in fact, is not the case! Such a result disagrees with the idea that the speed of light is always 300,000,000 meters per second.

The way that this was solved was by linking time and space using the "Lorentz Transformations". Simply, they are equations that make velocities never add up to be over the speed of light which is the "speed limit" to the universe. This has to be the case because a famous experiment called the Michelson-Morley experiment showed with good enough accuracy that the speed of light had to be constant.

One consequence of the lorentz transformations is that when you move relative to someone, time slows down for you! The twin paradox is the effects of "Time dilation", which is time slowing down for someone. If you travel near the speed of light, 1 minute for you in a spaceship can be 20 minutes on earth! So you would age 1 minute while people on Earth age 20 minutes.

The equations for time dilation only allow time dilation to become noticable at speeds nearing the speed of light. At low, everyday speeds however, the time dilation becomes insignificant so we simply use everyday Newtonian mechanics.
 
hiram_sua said:
what i don't understand is WHY one twin ages more than the other merely by jetting at or nearly the speed of light.
If Penguino's answer isn't enough of a "why", you may find that there is no "why" that can satisfy you. At some point, we just have to say that it works that way because we observe it to work that way.

So you may want to consider the "why" of Galilean Relativity: why would speeds add linearly (ie, Penguino's bullet from a train example)? You'd probably say that it would make logical sense for the universe to work that way. But logic follows from assumptions and Galilean Relativity follows from assumptions about the universe that we have observed to be incorrect: ie, the assumption that the speed of light is not constant to all observers but varies just like every other speed we measure.

Get your arms around that and the "why?" tends to fall away and be replaced with "that's just the way it works".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K