Simultaneity at Speed of Light: Twin Paradox Explained

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of simultaneity in the context of special relativity, particularly as it relates to the twin paradox and hypothetical travel at the speed of light. Participants explore the implications of time dilation and reference frames when considering scenarios involving light-speed travel.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether events on Earth would be perceived as simultaneous from the perspective of a traveler who experiences no time during a round trip at light speed.
  • Another participant asserts that the premise of traveling at the speed of light is impossible for massive objects, stating that there is no valid frame of reference for light.
  • It is noted that attempting to define a frame co-moving with light leads to mathematical inconsistencies, which complicates the discussion.
  • A suggestion is made to consider scenarios at speeds less than light, such as 0.8c or 0.99c, to analyze the implications of time dilation and simultaneity more effectively.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that traveling at the speed of light is not feasible for massive bodies, but they express differing views on the implications of this for understanding simultaneity and the twin paradox. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the original question posed about simultaneity from the traveler's perspective.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the original premise, particularly the assumption of light-speed travel and its implications for reference frames. There are unresolved mathematical considerations related to defining simultaneity in this context.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 98 ·
4
Replies
98
Views
9K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K