Simultaneity at Speed of Light: Twin Paradox Explained

Guybrush
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have been pondering a special relativity question about the concept of simultaneity when moving at speed of light.

Say for instance I took a round trip to Alpha Centauri 4 light years away, traveling at the speed of light both out and home (using negligible time to turn around). Then no time would have passed for me, while 8 years have gone by on Earth, but does that imply that everything that happened on Earth in the meantime happened simultaneously as seen from my perspective?

From what I know the answer to the question above is 'no' because time like events can never appear to be simultaneous to any observer. Yet, it still seems to me that if 8 years passed on Earth, and no time passed for me, then everything that passed in-between should be simultaneous.

I realize that this is just an example of the twin paradox, and I feel I can make sense of it when the round trip is made below the speed of light, but not when traveling at the speed of light.

Thanks in advance for your help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your problem is that you have based everything on an impossible premise. There is no such thing as traveling at the speed of light (for things, like you, with mass), and there IS no frame of reference for light itself, so it's no good asking "how would light see it?" because that is a meaningless question.
 
It's impossible for a massive body such as yourself (no offence) to travel at the speed of light. That is a feature of special relativity that protects us from having to resolve the various divide-by-zero errors that you get if you try to define a frame co-moving with light.

In other words, I'm afraid that the question you're asking doesn't really make sense.
 
You cannot travel at c; light can do that, but it always travels at c wrt all inertial reference systems. And light is not an observer.

Instead you can actually calculate everything for the case v=0.8c (the numbers work out nice). Then work it again with v=.99c, and so on to get your limit.
 
Alright, so in the end the answer was relatively (bad pun, I know) simple. Thank you all for your answers.
 
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...
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(...
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
93
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
98
Views
7K
Back
Top