I Time Dilation Between Astronaut A and Person B

kevinki
Messages
3
Reaction score
1
Definitions:
Astronaut is A
Person on Earth is B

A travels to a star far away at near light speed,
A would see B's time dilate.
B would also see A's time dilate

Twin paradox revived:
What would happen if A returns to B at a very slow speed?
Then both frames of reference would see each others' time dilated.
A thinks 20 years passed, but only 10 years passed for B,
ans B thinks 20 years passed, but only 10 years passed for A.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As always, the traveling twin would experience a shorter time. You are, I think, failing to account for the relativity of simultaneity, which means that the traveller's definition of "now on Earth" changes at the turn over. That doesn't happen for the stay-at-home, and that leads to both twins having consistent expectations of the other's journey duration.
 
The Twin Paradox, at its core, does not have anything to do with high speeds, it's just that the outcome is more dramatic when high speeds are involved. Airline pilot's ages routinely differ from what their age would be had they never flown, it's just that the difference is in milliseconds (if that much) rather than more noticeable amounts.
 
kevinki said:
Definitions:
Astronaut is A
Person on Earth is B
Okay...

A travels to a star far away at near light speed,
A would see B's time dilate.
B would also see A's time dilate

Yes-s-s, but you must account for doppler effect. Actually what A (and B) actually see for each other opposite will be much slower. It's because of Doppler effect.Twin paradox revived:
What would happen if A returns to B at a very slow speed?
Then both frames of reference would see each others' time dilated.

Yes. But don't forget doppler effect. Actually both will see (no matter the velocity is) the other clock runs faster. But after adjusting to doppler effect the other clock actually runs slower wrt the observer.A thinks 20 years passed, but only 10 years passed for B,
ans B thinks 20 years passed, but only 10 years passed for A.

Come on...
##\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt(1-v^2)}##
##2 = \frac{1}{1-v^2}## ##v = 0.866##
In my hometown 0.866c is not in the very slow category. :smile:

But the essense is.., slow or not. Both will see the other clock dilated.

phinds said:
The Twin Paradox, at its core, does not have anything to do with high speeds, it's just that the outcome is more dramatic when high speeds are involved. Airline pilot's ages routinely differ from what their age would be had they never flown, it's just that the difference is in milliseconds (if that much) rather than more noticeable amounts.
Yeah, that's why flight seems shorter with a beautiful stewardess,
 
Stephanus said:
Yeah, that's why flight seems shorter with a beautiful stewardess,
:DD
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top