Theoretical Question On The Twins Paradox and Heart Rate

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical implications of the twins paradox in the context of heart rate monitoring and time dilation. Participants explore the effects of traveling at relativistic speeds on aging and heartbeats, examining the nuances of time dilation and differential aging as they relate to the scenario of two twins, one traveling in a spaceship and the other remaining on Earth.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the heart rate monitor would cause the Earth-bound twin to die first due to accumulating heartbeats faster than the traveling twin, based on their understanding of time relativity.
  • Another participant counters that the scenario confuses time dilation with differential aging, clarifying that the traveling twin experiences less aging despite the heart rate monitor's readings.
  • Several participants discuss the common misconceptions surrounding the twins paradox, noting that it has been clarified multiple times in the forum.
  • One participant calculates that both twins would die at age 29.5, with the Earth twin potentially dying shortly after the traveling twin returns, emphasizing the concept of differential aging.
  • There is a discussion about the subtleties of special relativity, including the Doppler effect and how these concepts relate to time dilation and differential aging.
  • Some participants advocate for the use of spacetime diagrams to better understand the algebraic formulas associated with special relativity.
  • Another participant notes the pedagogical challenges in teaching special relativity, emphasizing the need for physical intuition beyond algebraic manipulation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of time dilation and differential aging, with some agreeing on the need for clarification of these concepts while others maintain their original interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact implications of heart rate monitoring in the context of the twins paradox.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexities and subtleties involved in understanding special relativity, indicating that there are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions in their discussions.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
What do you mean by ##\gamma \textbf{u}##?
What I mean is, if you start with, say, a coordinate of some moving object, (cdt, dx), ignoring the y and z directions, of course, and then divide by proper time, written as ## \frac{dt}{\gamma\ }## , you get (##\gamma \textbf{c}##, ##\gamma\ u_x##), so that second coordinate, the speed times gamma, is what I mean by ##\gamma \textbf{u}## .

So, if you multiply by invariant mass it becomes γmu, then if you take the time derivative, and then integrate over distance (after doing some manipulations with the differentials and integrating from 0 to u), you end up with a result that is identical to the relativistic kinetic energy equation.

So that's what I meant by all that. I don't know if it's mere coincidence or not, but it seems interesting to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Sorcerer said:
that second coordinate, the speed times gamma, is what I mean by ##\gamma \textbf{u}##.

That's the same thing that @DrGreg means by ##\gamma \textbf{v}##.
 
  • #33
Sorcerer said:
then divide by proper time, written as ##\frac{dt}{\gamma\ }##

I think you mean ##\frac{dt}{d\tau}##. The 4-velocity vector's components are

$$
U^\mu = \left( \frac{dt}{d\tau}, \frac{d \textbf{x}}{d\tau} \right) = \left( \gamma, \gamma \textbf{v} \right)
$$

(in units where ##c = 1##). Multiplying by the invariant mass ##m## then gives the 4-momentum ##P^\mu##.
 
  • #34
PeterDonis said:
I think you mean ##\frac{dt}{d\tau}##. The 4-velocity vector's components are

$$
U^\mu = \left( \frac{dt}{d\tau}, \frac{d \textbf{x}}{d\tau} \right) = \left( \gamma, \gamma \textbf{v} \right)
$$

(in units where ##c = 1##). Multiplying by the invariant mass ##m## then gives the 4-momentum ##P^\mu##.
Well, as I understand it, ##\frac{dt}{d\tau}## = γ, hence proper time must be ##\frac{dt}{γ}## . So dividing dx by that will give ##\frac{dx}{\frac{dt}{γ}}## which is ##γ\frac{dx}{dt}##, or ##γu## .But yeah the net result is exactly what you put there. I guess it is indeed a 4-velocity, except I'm ignoring y and z.

So why does that look the same as celerity? Is celerity exactly what the spatial components of 4-velocity are?
 
  • #35
Sorcerer said:
as I understand it, dtdτdtdτ\frac{dt}{d\tau} = γ, hence proper time must be ##\frac{dt}{γ}## .

If you want to treat differentials that way (which would give many rigorous mathematicians apoplexy, although most physicists wouldn't bat an eye), then yes, you can write ##d\tau = dt / \gamma##.

Sorcerer said:
So dividing dx by that will give ##\frac{dx}{\frac{dt}{γ}}## which is ##\gamma \frac{dx}{dt}##, or ##\gamma u## .

Yes, which is what @DrGreg was calling ##\gamma \textbf{v}##, as I said before (and that's how I wrote it in my post).

Sorcerer said:
So why does that look the same as celerity?

Because, as @DrGreg posted, celerity is equal to ##\gamma \textbf{v}##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K