Twin Paradox - Question on Space Time Diagram Analysis Resolution

[controlfreak]

I started a thread previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-happens-on-moving-frame-but-which-one.814622/) around this concept but it got closed by one of the staff after helpfully pointing me to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html.

I read that link and it does nicely explain how Stella's elapsed "proper" time is lesser when analysed using the lens of Minkowski spacetime, from the frame of reference of Terrence (assuming Terrence is at rest). But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines? In fact the worldlines will switch between them. So from Stella's frame of reference, she will calculate that the elapsed "proper time" of Terrence is less than Stella and he would have aged less. So as I see it the paradox isn't avoided and infact reinforced by this elaborate calculation.

What am i missing?

 

[Mentz114]

I started a thread previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-happens-on-moving-frame-but-which-one.814622/) around this concept but it got closed by one of the staff after helpfully pointing me to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html.

I read that link and it does nicely explain how Stella's elapsed "proper" time is lesser when analysed using the lens of Minkowski spacetime, from the frame of reference of Terrence (assuming Terrence is at rest). But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines? In fact the worldlines will switch between them. So from Stella's frame of reference, she will calculate that the elapsed "proper time" of Terrence is less than Stella and he would have aged less. So as I see it the paradox isn't avoided and infact reinforced by this elaborate calculation.

What am i missing?

Worldlines are actual things and they cannot be altered. They will look the same from any prespectve ( for instance if a ball bounces off a wall - that is a fact and the worldlines express this).

The other thing is that the proper time measured along a section of a worldline is an absolute invariant. It is always the same. This is because the metric $ds^2= -c^2dt^2+dx^2 + ...$ which defines the proper interval is invariant inder Lorentz transformations.

The metric may also be written $-c^2d\tau^2= -c^2dt^2+dx^2 + ...$

 

[stevendaryl]

I started a thread previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-happens-on-moving-frame-but-which-one.814622/) around this concept but it got closed by one of the staff after helpfully pointing me to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html.

I read that link and it does nicely explain how Stella's elapsed "proper" time is lesser when analysed using the lens of Minkowski spacetime, from the frame of reference of Terrence (assuming Terrence is at rest). But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines? In fact the worldlines will switch between them. So from Stella's frame of reference, she will calculate that the elapsed "proper time" of Terrence is less than Stella and he would have aged less. So as I see it the paradox isn't avoided and infact reinforced by this elaborate calculation.

What am i missing?

Let me give an analogy: You have two roads that both go from city A to city B. One road starts at A, goes north 100 miles, makes a right-angle turn, and goes east 100 to reach city B. Another road goes northeast from A to B. The roads have different lengths. It doesn't matter how you turn the map, the straight road is not going to have the same length as the bent road.

A change of reference frame in SR is analogous to rotating a map in Euclidean space. You can't change a "straight" path into a "bent" path. There is no inertial reference frame in which Stella is always at rest.

 

[Dale]

But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines?

No. That is the point of the Minkowski spacetime approach. Choosing different frames of reference only changes the grid lines that we draw on spacetime. The geometric figure remains the same regardless of how we choose the grid lines.

Stella's line is geometrically bent and Terence's world line is geometrically straight independent of any grid lines. Even using weird bent grid lines does not change that fact. Just as you can draw a straight line and a bent line on a piece of paper and, independent of any grid, determine that the straight line is straight and the bent line is bent and determine the length of each line, similarly with Minkowski spacetime.

 

[ghwellsjr]

I started a thread previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-happens-on-moving-frame-but-which-one.814622/) around this concept but it got closed by one of the staff after helpfully pointing me to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html.

I read that link and it does nicely explain how Stella's elapsed "proper" time is lesser when analysed using the lens of Minkowski spacetime, from the frame of reference of Terrence (assuming Terrence is at rest). But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines? In fact the worldlines will switch between them. So from Stella's frame of reference, she will calculate that the elapsed "proper time" of Terrence is less than Stella and he would have aged less. So as I see it the paradox isn't avoided and infact reinforced by this elaborate calculation.

What am i missing?

What you are saying is true for the beginning of the scenario but not for the entire scenario. Let's suppose that Stella travels away from Terrence at 60%c for 8 years then turns around and takes another 8 years to get back. Here is a spacetime diagram showing this where Stella's worldline is red and Terrence's is blue and the dots mark off 1-year increments of Proper Time for both of them:

Note that after 5 years of Coordinate Time, Terrence has aged 5 years (because this is Terrence's rest frame) while Stella has aged only 4 years.

Now we transform to the rest frame of Stella during the first part of the scenario:

Note how after 5 years of Coordinate Time, Stella has aged 5 years while Terrence has aged only 4 years just as you pointed out. However, when we look at the entire scenario from either spacetime diagram, Terrence ages 20 years while Stella ages 16 years.

Does this clear up what you are missing?

 

[controlfreak]

Note how after 5 years of Coordinate Time, Stella has aged 5 years while Terrance has aged only 4 years just as you pointed out. However, when we look at the entire scenario from either spacetime diagram, Terrance ages 20 years while Stella ages 16 years.

ghwellsjr - Thank you for this answer. In fact if you see before the turn around (the first part of the journey) from Stella's rest frame, Stella has aged 8 years while Terrence has aged only 6+ years of proper time.

The turn around is the main reason. In this case, if you see, after the turn around, the reference frame used by your diagram here is no more the "turned around" Stella's reference frame but the original reference frame of stella during the first part of the journey which is a reasonable and right approach, as you don't want to change your frame of reference midway just because Stella jumped unto a different reference frame for the second part of the journey. If you actually plot the reverse journey with the "turned around" Stella's reference frame as rest frame and then paste it with the first part of the journey (though not correct to do it as you need to stick when plotting space time diagram with one reference frame) it would be an opposite of the space diagram as seen from the Terrence's reference frame (but lengths would be different as the longest side will be 16 instead of 20 but nevertheless the bents would be switched resulting in a smaller triangle). But ofcourse I realize I followed an illegal approach as I changed the reference frame midway because I was sticking to Stella. But unfortunately she changed her reference frame by turning around. That was what I think I was missing - thank you for the insight and clarity!

[mentor's note: some discussion quoting a subsequently post has been removed]

 

[controlfreak]

ghwellsjr

But how did you calculate when using Stella's rest reference frame in the onward journey that she is at rest for 8 years? If we assume Stella is at rest then the space station (at the turn around point) has to travel to her. In that case, I am assuming the space station is traveling at 0.6 c towards Stella who is at rest. The distance between Stella and space station in 6 light years. So shouldn't space station take 10 years to reach Stella according to Stella? Why 8 years? Shouldnt the bend happen after 10 years of rest (travelling in time)?

 

[controlfreak]

I think in this diagram, I feel there should be a correction made. The red line should go from (0,0) to (0,10) and not to (0,8) and the bend for the red line happens at (0,10) and then the line goes to (-15,25). At coordinate time 10 yrs, Terrence location will be -6 in x-axis which is correct as at the turn around point Terrence and Stella are separated by 6 light years. And also Terrence would have also spent proper time of 8 years (check graph) and so 2 years slower than Stella as we expected. So it is not 8/6.5 but 10/8 between Stella and Terrence at the turn around point as suggested by the above figure, an exact reverse of the world lines as seen from Terrance side (atleast for the first part of the journey) like I initially pointed out in my first post. But after that for the second part of the journey lines slope in such a manner we get back to original answer of 16 years for Stella and 20 years for Terrence at (-15,25) which tallies well with the answer we expected at the end of the journey. No confusion there if we don't change frames midway following Stella.

Considering this to be the case, then I can go back to my original thought experiment which I believe is now valid if the above reasoning is valid.

Here is a thought experiment.

Restating the problem which we have been discussing - Assume relative velocity between the two frames (Terrence & Stella) is 0.6 c. Stella travels from Earth to a space station which is 6 Light years away and then turns around and comes back. In the first part of the journey symmetry is not broken and so both Stella and Terrence's frames are equivalent. Both think the other person's time is slower. As per Stella she reaches the space station in 10 years, Terrence thinks she reaches the space station in 8 years.

Say Stella is a cancer patient and will die around 9 years if left untreated. Suppose the medicine for treatment is present in the space station at the end of the first part of the journey and suppose they get the medicine when they pass that station during the turn around and give it to Stella after that, Stella will be cured. Now the question if Stella is alive when she returns, then she reached the space station before 9 years which means the time was running slow in the spaceship which is what Terrence will argue if the journey is viewed from his reference, otherwise if she is dead when she returns then the time was running faster in spaceship which is what Stella herself will argue if she viewed the whole journey from her reference.

What is the truth? She can't be both dead and alive?

 

[Nugatory]

But how did you calculate when using Stella's rest reference frame in the onward journey that she is at rest for 8 years?

We have two events: Stella leaves earth; and Stella arrives at space station.

In a frame at which Terence is at rest, the (t,x) coordinates of these two events are (0,0) and (10,6): Terence set his watch to zero at the time of Stella's departure and says that Stella arrives at the station 6 light-years away at the same time that Terence's watch reads 10 years. Clearly Terence ages ten years while this is going on, but we can double-check by calculating the proper time between the events "Stella's departure" and "Terence celebrates his tenth birthday and says to himself 'wow - she should be arriving at the space station right about now'". That event has coordinates, in the frame in which Terence is at rest, of (10,0) and the proper time comes out to be $\sqrt{(10-0)^2-(0-0)^2}=10$.

Now we use the Lorentz transforms to see what the coordinates of these two events are using the frame in which Stella is at rest on the outbound leg. Her departure event is still (0,0), but Stella coordinates for the second event are (8,0) - and we get this not by using the time dilation formula, but by using the Lorentz transforms which relate Terence's x,t coordinates to Stella's and vice versa.

You can calculate how much Stella aged during her trip by using either Terence's coordinates ($\sqrt{(10-0)^2-(6-0)^2}=8$ or using Stella's coordinates $\sqrt{(8-0)^2-(0-0)^2}=8$ and we get the same eight years as the answer. It would be a good exercise to transform Terence's coordinates (10,0) for the event of his tenth birthday party to Stella's coordinates - note that although Stella arrives at the station at the same time as the party starts according to Terence, the party and Stella's arrival at the station are not(!) simultaneous according to Stella - and verify that Stella also calculates that Terence has aged ten years between the departure event and the party event.

 

[Nugatory]

The red line should go from (0,0) to (0,10) and not to (0,8)

No, the diagram is right. The event "Stella arrives at the station" happens at time 10 and position 6 in a frame in which Terence is at rest - but the diagram is showing coordinates in which Stella is at rest, and in those coordinates the arrival event happens at time 8 and position 0. An arbitrary point on the Terence diagram (the one in which Terence's worldline moves straight up the page) with coordinate x and t is the same point as the point on the Stella diagram with coordinates x' and t' given by the Lorentz transformations:
$x'=\gamma(x-vt)$
$t'=\gamma(t-vx)$

Try it, and you'll find that Terence's (10,6) is Stella's (8,0).

 

[Nugatory]

Stella travels from Earth to a space station which is 6 Light years away and then turns around and comes back. In the first part of the journey symmetry is not broken and so both Stella and Terrence's frames are equivalent. Both think the other person's time is slower. As per Stella she reaches the space station in 10 years, Terrence thinks she reaches the space station in 8 years.

Terence is the one who finds that outbound leg is ten years. This is just basic distance=speed*time and time=distance/speed: Stella has to cover six light years while moving at .6c relative to Terence so he divides the distance by the speed (6/.6) and gets ten years. As far as Stella is concerned, however, she is at rest while Terence and the station are moving backwards at .6c. Because they are moving relative to her, the distance between them is length-contracted to 24/5=4.8 light years. So she has a space station that is 4.8 light years away, racing towards her at .6c even as the Earth and Terence disappear in her rear view mirror at the same speed. She calculates 4.8/.6 to get 8 years for the station to reach her.

 

[controlfreak]

Because they are moving relative to her, the distance between them is length-contracted to 24/5=4.8 light years.

Yes. This is the main point of contention wrt to (0,10) or (0,8) and Terrence is not even in the picture at this stage and is all between Stella and the space station. If we solve that without bringing Terrence into picture everything will follow and the contradiction will vanish. So the question is whether it takes the space station to reach Stella 10 or 8 years viewed from the reference of Stella's rest frame.

I was about to write it but you had added another post addressing the same. I believe Lorentz contraction happens only for moving objects in the direction of motion. So in the rest frame of Stella, she might possibly see the length of the space station moving towards her to contract in its length as it is moving but would she also see the space between her and the space station contract so that the space station traveling at 0.6 c cover that contracted space (4.8 Light years) in 8 years? Is the space moving towards her for it to contract as per Lorentz contraction? What does that mean? I am missing something here.

In other words, what is the difference between a spacecraft moving away from you at 0.6 c (in case of Terrence) and a space station moving towards you at 0.6 c (in the case of Stella). Why should both behave differently wrt distance covered. I still feel there should be a correction to the diagram as I suggested. Am I missing something?

 

[A.T.]

What does that mean?

My advice : Try to understand the Lorentz transformation as a whole, instead of thinking about it's individual effects like contraction, dilation etc.

Maybe this will help you:

http://www.adamtoons.de/physics/twins.swf

On the top right you have a slider "Observers velocity in A's frame" that allows you to smoothly switch between different inertial frames.

Here also a good visualization of Lorentz transformation:

 

[Mentz114]

Am I missing something?

Yes. You ignore any mention of proper time. The diagrams are correct, and the time on a clock between any two events $(t1,x1)$ and $(t2,x2)$ is $\sqrt{ (t1-t2)^2 - (x1-x2)^2 }$ which you can easily calculate. As A.T. has said - forget about length contraction and time dilation. It is all in the proper times.

 

[Nugatory]

In other words, what is the difference between a spacecraft moving away from you at 0.6 c (in case of Terrence) and a space station moving towards you at 0.6 c (in the case of Stella). Why should both behave differently wrt distance covered.

They don't. In a frame in which the station and Terence are at rest the six light-year initial distance between Stella and the station is closed in ten years; in a frame in which Stella is at rest and Terence and the station are moving the 4.8 light-year distance between them is closed in eight years.

And as for why I keep saying that the distance between Stella at the start of the journey and the station at the start of the journey is 4.8 light-years using Stella's coordinates? Well, the length of something is defined as the distance between its endpoints at the same time. (If both endpoints are at rest relative to us we don't have to worry about the "at the same time" part because nothing is changing, but as the station is moving relative to Stella she has to be a bit more careful). So Stella is somewhere (the point x=0 in her coordinates, to be precise) when the station starts moving towards her at .6c at time t=0. Where is the station at the same time that Stella's clock reads t=0, using Stella's coordinates? It's at the point (0,4.8) - play some with the Lorentz transforms and you'll find that that is the only value that is consistent with Stella being at the origin of the frame in which Terence and the station are at rest at time zero and the distance between that origin and the station is six light years in that frame.

 

[Dale]

I still feel there should be a correction to the diagram as I suggested. Am I missing something?

The diagram is correct. You are missing the relativity of simultaneity. You need to use the full Lorentz transform, not just bits and pieces.

Or you can take Mentz114's suggestion and forget coordinates and frames altogether and focus on the invariant quantities like proper time.

 

[Ibix]

They don't. In a frame in which the station and Terence are at rest the six light-year initial distance between Stella and the station is closed in ten years; in a frame in which Stella is at rest and Terence and the station are moving the 4.8 light-year distance between them is closed in eight years.

This is key. Up here in #8 you (@controlfreak) said:

In the first part of the journey symmetry is not broken and so both Stella and Terrence's frames are equivalent

But, as Nugatory points out, the frames are never symmetric. The origin and destination points are stationary in only one of them - they are moving in the other. There is symmetry only if we don't specify a destination point.

 

[controlfreak]

Here below I list both paths in the diagram - the path I suggested and the path originally which was suggested by ghwellsjr. This diagram is drawn with the reference of Frame 2 (the frame which travels at 0.6c away from earth). Stella travels with Frame 2 in the first half of the journey and then the second half she turns around and travels in direction opposite to Frame 2's movement with the same speed (0.6c). Frame 1 is the one assuming the rest frame as earth.

I have been contending in the above ST diagram, the path taken by Stella is S2 and not S1 as originally proposed by ghwellsjr. The key point of contention is in Frame 2, whether the turn around point happens at tp1 (0,8) or tp2 (0,10)? I still hold Lorentz contraction is not for space but for moving objects. In Michelson Morley experiment or above cart video, the experimental set up itself contracted to reduce the length traveled by light to ensure you don't need to increase the speed of light for the light to do the round-trip in the given time. There distance in space outside the experiment didnt contract which I believe if I am not wrong was what was suggested above by Nugatory in reducing the space to 4.8 light years instead of 10 which I am not still able to understand convincingly though I get the calculation from the formulaes.

I appreciate the specific answers provided by ghwellsjr and Nugatory giving the relevant arithmetic (using problem parameters) in addressing the problem in a specific manner. Thank you for the same as it clarified my doubts well and also enabled to articulate my point of view well.

If both endpoints are at rest relative to us we don't have to worry about the "at the same time" part because nothing is changing, but as the station is moving relative to Stella she has to be a bit more careful

Say you forget about this problem and digress a bit about another. Say Stella is at Earth and then there is a space station which is at 6 light years away and is moving towards her with 0.6 c, then with rest frame of Stella what would you conclude as to when the Space station will reach earth? 10 years or 8 years? I would say 10 years and I would think you will agree with that. Now what is the difference between this formulation and the original scenario. Both scenarios Stella is at rest and distance covered is measured from Stella's frame of reference and space station is moving towards Stella at 0.6 c and so why in one case space contracts and in the other case it doesn't and why in one case it should take 8 years coordinate time and 10 years coordinate time in the other case?

But having said all that, I see there is a way to prove that my contention about the path S2 is wrong. The slope of the line S2a is 45 degrees which means Stella is traveling in Frame 2 at light speed which is not true. The relative velocity based on the formula of relative velocities is :

v = (u - w)/ (1 - uw/c^2)

In this case when Stella is taking the reverse journey at .6c, the relative speed of Stella with respect to Frame 2 (which is moving in the opposite direction to Stella at 0.6c ) can be calculated by putting u = -0.6c and w = 0.6c and we get -(1.2/1.36) c. Considering we have ct coordinates. The slope should be (1.2/1.36) which is the slope of S1 and not S2a. So that proves my contention is wrong and S1 wins. Please note when calculating slope (tan theta) we need to take the angle between the line and time (vertical) axis.

But someone may question why should T and S meet at frame 2 coordinates (-15,25). Say if I draw a line S2a' with the slope (1.2/1.36) at tp2 which will be parallel to S1, it will intersect with T at a different point in the frame 2 coordinate system. If we calculate the coordinate time and distance at that point we get (-18.75,31.25). Can we not say that they meet at (-18.75,31.25) instead? This way we would have maintained the bend happens at tp2 and then slope is also now the right slope (1.2/1.36).

One problem is with respect to total proper time elapsed for T and S.

Calculating for T: At coordinate time 10, the proper time elapsed for T is $\sqrt(10^2-6^2)$ which is 8. And at coordinate time 25, the proper elapsed time for T is $\sqrt(25^2-15^2)$ which is 20. At coordinate point (-18.75,31.25), the proper elapsed time for T is 25 (if you do the calculation)

Calculating for S through different paths S1 and S2a' :

Path S1 - Till tp1, the proper time elapsed as per S1 path is 8 years which is also the coordinate time. The additional proper elapsed time for S if we follow S1 further till (-15,25) we will have that as $\sqrt(17^2-15^2)$ which is 8 years. So all is fine at (-15,25) - T's total elapsed is 20 yrs and S's elapsed is 16 (8+8) yrs just as we would expect. So Path S1 seems to be on the right track.

Path S2a' - Till tp2, the proper time elapsed as per S2 path is 10 years which is also the coordinate time. The proper elapsed time for S if we follow S2a' till the supposed meeting point with T which is at (-18.75,31.25) we get the proper elapsed time of S as $\sqrt(21.25^2-18.75^2) + 10$ which is 20 years.

So summarizing if we use the original path suggested by ghwellsjr, it all works out fine in terms of elapsed time at 20 for T and 16 for S. But if we use the S2a' path we get the elapsed time to be 25 for T and 20 for S which I am not sure what that means. If we assert that elapsed proper times should be same for T & S in all reference frames then we might need to go with path S1. But that is the assertion we started out to validate when twin paradox put that in question. If suppose that assertion is not valid then S2a' also seems to weirdly valid and Terrence and Stella meet when they are 25 and 20 instead of 20 and 16. I am not sure what that means.

In anycase this discussion has been quite useful to think deeper about these concepts. I am sure there is something not falling in place for me in mind and paradox is not fully resolved in my mind but these calculations did clear some confusions.

 

[Ibix]

I still hold Lorentz contraction is not for space but for moving objects.

A standard derivation of the Lorentz transforms is the light clock, which is simply a light pulse bouncing back and forwards between two mirrors. You do not need to assume that the mirrors are attached to one another; I have no idea how you would introduce such a requirement into the maths.

Alternatively consider four spaceships at rest in some frame. Spaceships A1 and A2 are next to each other, and spaceships B1 and B2 are next to each other, but some distance away from A1 and A2. A1 and B1 are connected by a long piece of string.

Now view this from a frame where the ships are in motion. If Lorentz contraction applies to objects only, A1 and B1 (which are connected) must be closer together viewed from this frame since the string is contracted; however A2 and B2 (which are not connected) are not closer together. So you end up with a situation where an observer at rest with respect to the spaceships accepts that someone can lean our of A1's airlock and knock on A2's airlock, but according to a moving observer the ships are kilometers apart.

 

[Mentz114]

So summarizing if we use the original path suggested by ghwellsjr, it all works out fine in terms of elapsed time at 20 for T and 16 for S. But if we use the S2a' path we get the elapsed time to be 25 for T and 20 for S which I am not sure what that means. If we assert that elapsed proper times should be same for T & S in all reference frames then we might need to go with path S1. But that is the assertion we started out to validate when twin paradox put that in question. If suppose that assertion is not valid then S2a' also seems to weirdly valid and Terrence and Stella meet when they are 25 and 20 instead of 20 and 16. I am not sure what that means.

You've taken a big step forward by working out those proper times yourself. You will find if you repeat that on one of the boosted diagrams that you get the same answers. I still think that is pretty amazing and is at the heart of special relativiry.

 

[controlfreak]

A standard derivation of the Lorentz transforms is the light clock, which is simply a light pulse bouncing back and forwards between two mirrors. You do not need to assume that the mirrors are attached to one another; I have no idea how you would introduce such a requirement into the maths.

Possibly it should be reworded and was said in a context where one body is at rest and the other is moving and we were contracting the space in between to calculate the time needed to cover the distance between them which I wasnt so comfortable with and indicated the space doesn't contract in that context.

But having said that I understand what you are referring to. Say there are two aircrafts moving at a similar velocity one behind the other and not connect by any physical string. Say a light signal is sent from one air plane to another in the direction of motion, we would say that the distance between the aircrafts will need to contract in the direction of its motion to calculate the light's motion from one aircraft to another and to calculate the time needed to cover the distance. Possibly in this case we are considering the two aircrafts put together as a super object virtually connected by similar velocities. Here they are not physically connected but gives the feeling of being connected (a continuum). If you look at it at the atomic scale nothing is physically connected as there is always space in between atoms, electrons, neutrons etc. An atom is just a super object of electrons and protons etc. They are connected through forces and bonds (generated through forces). But in the aircraft situation there is pretty much no appreciable force of attraction between them and so it is a case being "virtually" connected.

But the interesting question is what happens if one is an helicopter and is stalling and the other is an aircraft and moves at a velocity, will the distance between the aircrafts contract in the direction of the motion of the first aircraft. What happens when one aircraft is moving at a certain velocity and there is another aircraft which is moving in a different velocity behind it - how does the contraction work then when the light travels from first aircraft to another? How does the space contract then? Does it contract based on the relative velocity as calculated by SR.

You've taken a big step forward by working out those proper times yourself.

Thank you. I don't think I have fully understood the concept to my satisfaction but someday it will happen I suppose but I am glad there has been an improvement in my understanding through this dialogue with various experts here in this forum.

I am not sure if this below problem has already been discussed in this forum but when I searched I wasnt able to find a reference to this formulation.

Problem : Assuming Terrence and Stella are in Earth and a space station 6 Light years away respectively. They both start at the same time and then approach each other. Each is traveling at a speed of 0.5 c in opposite directions. How does it play out? We see that the relative velocity works out to 0.8 c. Both of them see that the other person ages slowly as the other person is moving at -0.8 c as seen from the rest frame of the other person. What happens when they meet midway. Who will be aged?

 

[A.T.]

Both of them see that the other person ages slowly as the other person is moving ...

If by "see" you mean visually with a telescope: That will vary before and after they see the other start..

If by "see" you mean what they compute in their rest frame to happen with the distant twin: The other twin will age faster during the acceleration of your own ship, then slower once you move initially.

In both cases the clock rate differences will cancel out, so both meet after aging the same amount since start.

 

[PAllen]

I am not sure if this below problem has already been discussed in this forum but when I searched I wasnt able to find a reference to this formulation.

Problem : Assuming Terrence and Stella are in Earth and a space station 6 Light years away respectively. They both start at the same time and then approach each other. Each is traveling at a speed of 0.5 c in opposite directions. How does it play out? We see that the relative velocity works out to 0.8 c. Both of them see that the other person ages slowly as the other person is moving at -0.8 c as seen from the rest frame of the other person. What happens when they meet midway. Who will be aged?

As far as special relativity is concerned, they will end up aged the same. Accounting for general relativity (gravitation), the one leaving Earth will have aged very slightly less. Barring gravity, this problem is completely symmetric, so the answer must be 'the same'.

 

[Mentz114]

Thank you. I don't think I have fully understood the concept to my satisfaction but someday it will happen I suppose but I am glad there has been an improvement in my understanding through this dialogue with various experts here in this forum.

I am not sure if this below problem has already been discussed in this forum but when I searched I wasnt able to find a reference to this formulation.

Problem : Assuming Terrence and Stella are in Earth and a space station 6 Light years away respectively. They both start at the same time and then approach each other. Each is traveling at a speed of 0.5 c in opposite directions. How does it play out? We see that the relative velocity works out to 0.8 c. Both of them see that the other person ages slowly as the other person is moving at -0.8 c as seen from the rest frame of the other person. What happens when they meet midway. Who will be aged?

If you drew a diagram and it was symmetric then you can guess that the proper times of the paths will be the same. Any problem of this kind can be resolved by working out the proper times.

[edit]
I see PAllen has made this point while I was thinking.

 

[Nugatory]

I still hold Lorentz contraction is not for space but for moving objects.

The interplay of of time dilation and length contraction that we're describing has actually been experimentally observed - not with a cancer patient on a spaceship speeding towards the space station that holds the miracle cure as in your thought experiment, but with subatomic particles. These have short enough lifetimes that the entire journey can play out here on earth, and large particle accelerators would not work if Lorentz contraction applied only to moving objects.

Perhaps the best way of thinking about it is that Lorentz contraction applies to all distances, not just the distance between the ends of single object.

Imagine five meter sticks, touching one another end-to-end. This gives us one rod five meters long in a frame in which the rod is not moving. An observer moving at .6c relative to the assembly will measure the distance between the ends of the rod to be four meters long so will say that is length-contracted. Now suppose I remove the meter stick in the middle - this doesn't change the position or length of the other four, so I now have two rods two meters long and separated by a one meter gap and the distance between the left-hand end of the left-most meter stick and the right-hand end of the right-most meter stick is five meters.

But what about the observer moving at .6c relative to the assembly? Nothing has changed with the four meter sticks that we didn't touch, so he sees two rods, both 1.6 meters long and separated by a gap of .8 meters where the middle meter stick used to be, and of course the distance between the left-hand end of the left-most meter stick and the right-hand end of the right-most meter stick is four meters.

There are three kinds of distance here: the length of single objects (the meter sticks, the five-meter rod, the two two-meter rods); the length of an empty space gap (the gap between the two two-meter rods); and the distance between points on two different objects (the five meters between the left-hand end of the left two-meter rod and the right-hand end of the right two meter rod). All of these have length-contracted in the same way.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Say you forget about this problem and digress a bit about another. Say Stella is at Earth and then there is a space station which is at 6 light years away and is moving towards her with 0.6 c, then with rest frame of Stella what would you conclude as to when the Space station will reach earth? 10 years or 8 years? I would say 10 years and I would think you will agree with that.

It's 10 years of Coordinate Time in Stella's rest frame as shown here with the Earth in blue, Stella in red and the Space station in black:

But if we transform to the Space station's rest frame during the "trip", it's 8 years of Coordinate Time and also 8 years of Proper Time for the Space station:

Now what is the difference between this formulation and the original scenario. Both scenarios Stella is at rest and distance covered is measured from Stella's frame of reference and space station is moving towards Stella at 0.6 c and so why in one case space contracts and in the other case it doesn't and why in one case it should take 8 years coordinate time and 10 years coordinate time in the other case?

There's no difference if you compare them in the same way. Here is Stella's trip to the Space station in the Earth rest frame:

And here we transform to Stella's rest frame durijng her "trip":

​

Note that in both cases, in the Earth rest frame the distance traveled is 6 light-years and it takes 10 years. Also in both cases, in the rest frame of the "traveler", it takes 8 years and the distance "traveled" is 4.8 light-years which is also the distance between the Earth and the Space station (prior to its departure in the second case).

Does this make sense to you now?

 

[ghwellsjr]

But someone may question why should T and S meet at frame 2 coordinates (-15,25). Say if I draw a line S2a' with the slope (1.2/1.36) at tp2 which will be parallel to S1, it will intersect with T at a different point in the frame 2 coordinate system. If we calculate the coordinate time and distance at that point we get (-18.75,31.25). Can we not say that they meet at (-18.75,31.25) instead? This way we would have maintained the bend happens at tp2 and then slope is also now the right slope (1.2/1.36).

You have just changed the scenario to a new one where Stella travels for 10 years out and 10 years back instead of 8 like I specified. No problem with that as long as you realize it's a different scenario. Here is a spacetime diagram depicting your new specification:

...

So summarizing if we use the original path suggested by ghwellsjr, it all works out fine in terms of elapsed time at 20 for T and 16 for S. But if we use the S2a' path we get the elapsed time to be 25 for T and 20 for S which I am not sure what that means. If we assert that elapsed proper times should be same for T & S in all reference frames then we might need to go with path S1. But that is the assertion we started out to validate when twin paradox put that in question. If suppose that assertion is not valid then S2a' also seems to weirdly valid and Terrence and Stella meet when they are 25 and 20 instead of 20 and 16. I am not sure what that means.

As I said, it just means you changed to a new scenario. Here is the spacetime diagram we get when we transform it to Terrence's rest frame:

Note that the Proper Times are the same in both these frames for your new scenario, just like they were in both frames of my original scenario.

But what I don't understand is why you don't have a similar problem with your new scenario that you had with my original scenario? Can you explain that?

 

[controlfreak]

Note that in both cases, in the Earth rest frame the distance traveled is 6 light-years and it takes 10 years. Also in both cases, in the rest frame of the "traveler", it takes 8 years and the distance "traveled" is 4.8 light-years which is also the distance between the Earth and the Space station (prior to its departure in the second case).

So this is my fundamental issue which has been troubling me. Let us look at what are the inputs to the ST Diagram creation program for creating each diagram. The fundamental input is the distance between the two points between which the travel happens. Then the velocities to calculate the slope of lines and the rest will take care of itself. So my problem is with the calculation of the primary input to these diagrams. The velocity is held constant across reference frames and that is good. But when reference frames changes, the distance has changed.

Here it in the below picture when it is Earth and space station as the rest reference frame, the distance is 6 light years.

But in the case of Stella's rest reference frame the distance is seen as 4.8 light years.

So before looking further at the diagrams, I am not comfortable in change of choices wrt distances between the two diagrams.

Suppose you ask two people to look at these pictures one each separately and independently without telling them what is what and also don't color them and remove the black line.

The person 1 who saw the first picture would say this is a ST diagram of someone traveling towards the right away from another person (who is at rest) to a place 6 light years away at speed 0.6c.
The person 2 who saw the second picture would say this is a ST diagram of someone traveling towards the left away from another person (who is at rest) to a place 4.8 light years away at speed 0.6c.

Now I ask the person 2 to draw a ST diagram in the rest frame of the traveling person. Note he doesn't know that Earth is supposedly traveling in the second diagram. In effect I am asking him to draw a diagram with Earth at rest. But what he will do if he follows the method we have used to change reference frames, he will further contract the distance from 4.8 light years to 3.84 light years as he truly doesn't know who is the traveller. Is that right? Or if we change the reference frame should we get the original distance of 6 light years from where we stared this contraction process while changing reference frames.

I am not sure if we can say the rest frame of Earth is different from rest frame of the "traveler" wrt distance and velocity. Because in the rest frame of the traveler he is not traveling and so all conception of traveling shouldn't come into picture in drawing the picture and so distance should remain at 6 light years. Otherwise we are not dealing with full frame equivalence if we hold onto the memory of his traveling capability and traveling sensation when drawing the diagram in his rest frame and reducing the distance to 4.8 light years. The distance has to be an invariant in both frame which it is not and the variable distance is calculated using the prior knowledge of who is the traveler and we use it to manipulate the rest frame of the prior traveler. That is what rankles me philosophically though I understand how to calculate the new distance and draw the diagram appropriately.

I also realize this change in distance is arising due to lorentz contraction of space before the "traveler" which Nugatory has been talking about. I have been thinking about his comment. But in anycase in the rest frame of Stella as she is at rest the space she looks at shouldn't contract. Why is it necessary for us to assume it contracts even though she is at rest and in Stella's rest frame, only Earth is the traveller. Why do we give prominence to Earth's reference frame? If you are resident of Stella's world (stella's reference frame) would you have thought like that because all along you will be thinking Earth is the "traveller". I feel we think like residents of Earth and calculate the physics of Stella's world.

Please also let me know what is the tool you use to draw these diagrams. Thank you.

 

[PeterDonis]

I am not comfortable in change of choices wrt distances between the two diagrams.

It's due to length contraction. Nugatory already explained this.

The person 1 who saw the first picture would say this is a ST diagram of someone traveling towards the right away from another person (who is at rest) to a place 6 light years away at speed 0.6c.

Yes, with the added fact that the place 6 light years away is also at rest.

The person 2 who saw the second picture would say this is a ST diagram of someone traveling towards the left away from another person (who is at rest) to a place 4.8 light years away at speed 0.6c.

No. They would say it is a ST diagram of someone riding along on one object (the Earth) moving to the left at 0.6c, then leaving it and sitting at rest for a while, and then meeting another object (the space station) moving to the left at 0.6c, 4.8 light years behind the first one, and riding along with it.

in the rest frame of Stella as she is at rest the space she looks at shouldn't contract.

Length contraction is not a contraction of "space". It's a contraction of lengths of objects and distances between objects, when those objects are moving.

 

[controlfreak]

Length contraction is not a contraction of "space". It's a contraction of lengths of objects and distances between objects, when those objects are moving.

Yes I should have said distance not space.

No. They would say it is a ST diagram of someone riding along on one object (the Earth) moving to the left at 0.6c, then leaving it and sitting at rest for a while, and then meeting another object (the space station) moving to the left at 0.6c, 4.8 light years behind the first one, and riding along with it.

I mentioned that we should remove the black line before showing the pictures. So there is no space station according to these ST diagram viewers. And it could even be that she has been at rest all the while and sees Earth passing her to the left moving at 0.6 c. The red line starts only at zero time and so not sure if she was on Earth before zero.

 

[PeterDonis]

I mentioned that we should remove the black line before showing the pictures.

Why? Even if there is no object there, it still marks the "point in space", according to the Earth frame, where Stella stops. In any other frame, that "point in space" is moving, not at rest; so we need the black line to tell us where it is.

it could even be that she has been at rest all the while and sees Earth passing her to the left moving at 0.6 c. The red line starts only at zero time and so not sure if she was on Earth before zero.

Well, you're the one that made up the scenario. What do you want her to do? If she is at rest the whole time, then the red line extends vertically through the entire diagram, and the description becomes: it's a ST diagram of someone sitting at rest and being passed by two objects moving to the left at 0.6c that are 4.8 light years apart. None of that changes the main point, which is that the way a person would describe this second ST diagram is not what you said. That is, you were thinking of it incorrectly, which naturally means you're going to come to incorrect conclusions.

 

[controlfreak]

and the description becomes: it's a ST diagram of someone sitting at rest and being passed by two objects moving to the left at 0.6c that are 4.8 light years apart.

That is exactly the place where I needed to rethink my though process wrt distances and that is the key. I see what you are saying. At time zero, from Stella's perspective , when Earth is at the same place as she is, the distance between the space station and Earth is 4.8 light years as Station and Earth are moving at 0.6c and hence distances between them should be contracted through Lorentz contraction to 4.8 light years. That means at time zero there are two people (Stella at rest and Earth guy moving at 0.6 c wrt Stella) side by side. And at time zero, Stella and Earth guy both see the same person on the space station and they both come to different conclusions that he is 4.8 Light years away and 6 Light years away from them respectively. Suppose the Earth guy has a measuring scale on Earth which is 6 Light years long - he uses that scale and touches the space station guy and gets convinced that he is 6 Light years away. But Stella will look at this and say the measuring scale is just 4.8 light years long. This is all happening at time zero. Suppose there are other observers at varied velocities (wrt Stella) side by side to Stella at time zero, they will all measure different values for the distance between them and the space station. Let us say all stand in a line hold a large rod which touches the space station - each observer will look at rods of all the other observes and say all rods are equal in length meaning the start and end points of all the rods coincide. But when asked for a number for the length each will say different numbers - one will say 4.8 and the other will say 6. This is because their measuring systems are out of sync and not the reality they see.

This brings us to the fundamental question as to what is distance in space or what is meant by size/length of an object or any measurement in space. All these space measurements are only relative to the reference measuring system of the measurer. The size of the universe or galaxies or planets are all different from the perspective of the guy who measures depending on how he moves relative to others. Distances, lengths and sizes are relative and lies in the eyes of the beholder!

With this understanding and acceptance of this idea, I can now see how the paradox is solved. I have to now convince myself further whether this understanding is truly sound by understanding experimental data which attests to this understanding.

Thank you for that right push. I suppose I am right in the way I have formulated my understanding of how things are wrt distances.

 

[ghwellsjr]

...
Let us look at what are the inputs to the ST Diagram creation program for creating each diagram. The fundamental input is the distance between the two points between which the travel happens. Then the velocities to calculate the slope of lines and the rest will take care of itself. So my problem is with the calculation of the primary input to these diagrams. The velocity is held constant across reference frames and that is good. But when reference frames changes, the distance has changed.

That's not quite how my program works. The inputs consist of a velocity and the number of ticks of the Proper Time unit. The program then calculates the x,t coordinates of each tick and transforms them to create each new diagram. It's not going to make a mistake.
...

Please also let me know what is the tool you use to draw these diagrams. Thank you.

I created my own tool.

 

[controlfreak]

That's not quite how my program works. The inputs consist of a velocity and the number of ticks of the Proper Time unit. The program then calculates the x,t coordinates of each tick and transforms them to create each new diagram. It's not going to make a mistake.

Thank you for the response.

Let me understand this.

For the below diagram to plot the red and blue line wrt a rest frame moving at a speed 0.6 c right wrt Earth

Are these the inputs you provided?

The velocities :
Red line velocity -> Zero velocity for first part of the journey and (-1.2/1.36 c) for the second part of the journey
Blue line velocity -> (- 0.6 c)

The proper time ticks :
Red line - 8 ticks for the first half and 8 ticks for the second half
Blue line - 20 ticks for the entire journey

 

[controlfreak]

Also I suppose your provide initial coordinates as in some cases the line won't start at (0,0) - say in the case of the black line for the space station in a later diagram you created.

 

[ghwellsjr]

That is exactly the place where I needed to rethink my though process wrt distances and that is the key. I see what you are saying. At time zero, from Stella's perspective , when Earth is at the same place as she is, the distance between the space station and Earth is 4.8 light years as Station and Earth are moving at 0.6c and hence distances between them should be contracted through Lorentz contraction to 4.8 light years. That means at time zero there are two people (Stella at rest and Earth guy moving at 0.6 c wrt Stella) side by side. And at time zero, Stella and Earth guy both see the same person on the space station and they both come to different conclusions that he is 4.8 Light years away and 6 Light years away from them respectively.

At time zero, they do both see the same image of the space station person but not in a way that they could come to any conclusion about his distance.

Suppose the Earth guy has a measuring scale on Earth which is 6 Light years long - he uses that scale and touches the space station guy and gets convinced that he is 6 Light years away. But Stella will look at this and say the measuring scale is just 4.8 light years long. This is all happening at time zero. Suppose there are other observers at varied velocities (wrt Stella) side by side to Stella at time zero, they will all measure different values for the distance between them and the space station. Let us say all stand in a line hold a large rod which touches the space station - each observer will look at rods of all the other observes and say all rods are equal in length meaning the start and end points of all the rods coincide. But when asked for a number for the length each will say different numbers - one will say 4.8 and the other will say 6. This is because their measuring systems are out of sync and not the reality they see.

Aside from the impracticality of using such large rods to measure distances and the impossibility of the observers seeing both ends of their rods at the same time, rods are no longer the standard for measuring distances. Instead we use the defined constant for the speed of light, the defined distance for how far light travels in a given time interval and a laser range finder or radar techniques.

This brings us to the fundamental question as to what is distance in space or what is meant by size/length of an object or any measurement in space. All these space measurements are only relative to the reference measuring system of the measurer. The size of the universe or galaxies or planets are all different from the perspective of the guy who measures depending on how he moves relative to others. Distances, lengths and sizes are relative and lies in the eyes of the beholder!

I wouldn't say it's in the eyes of the beholder because it isn't something that can be seen. Rather, it's a matter of meticulous data collection, analyzation, and the application of Einstein's second postulate--that laser or radar signals take just as long to reach their target as the echoes take to get back. Then it's a simple matter, in principle, to show how each observer can get a different answer to the question of how far away is the space station.

To illustrate this, we need a spacetime diagram that starts earlier and where all participants are inertial:

First, I want you to note the thin black line coming up from the bottom of the thick black line. This represents what both observers see of the space station person at time zero.

Next, note the blue observer sent a radar signal to the space station at his Proper Time of -6 years and received its echo at +6 years. When he receives the echo, he concludes that the space station was 6 light-years away, 6 years earlier at his time zero.

Similarly, the red observer sent a radar signal at his Proper Time of -4.8 years and received the echo at +4.8 years so he concludes that the space station was 4.8 light-years away at his time zero.

Now if we transform to the rest frame of the red observer, we see that all the signals start and arrive at the same Proper Times as in the original diagram:

I don't want you to think that it is only rest frames that are important so here's one where all participants are traveling at 1/3 of c:

With this understanding and acceptance of this idea, I can now see how the paradox is solved. I have to now convince myself further whether this understanding is truly sound by understanding experimental data which attests to this understanding.

Thank you for that right push. I suppose I am right in the way I have formulated my understanding of how things are wrt distances.

Have my comments and diagrams helped your understanding?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thank you for the response.

Let me understand this.

For the below diagram to plot the red and blue line wrt a rest frame moving at a speed 0.6 c right wrt Earth

Are these the inputs you provided?

The velocities :
Red line velocity -> Zero velocity for first part of the journey and (-1.2/1.36 c) for the second part of the journey
Blue line velocity -> (- 0.6 c)

No, I used the parameters for the first diagram and then transformed to a speed of 0.6c.
Red: 0.6c for 8 ticks then -0.6c for 8 ticks.
Blue: 0c for 20 tick

The proper time ticks :
Red line - 8 ticks for the first half and 8 ticks for the second half
Blue line - 20 ticks for the entire journey

 

[ghwellsjr]

Also I suppose your provide initial coordinates as in some cases the line won't start at (0,0) - say in the case of the black line for the space station in a later diagram you created.

Yes.

 

[Mentz114]

Please also let me know what is the tool you use to draw these diagrams. Thank you.

There is a space-time diagram tool linked to in this thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/interactive-minkowski-diagrams-tool.813899/

 

[controlfreak]

No, I used the parameters for the first diagram and then transformed to a speed of 0.6c.

When you mean transform I suppose at a high level you are using one transformation subroutine and one drawing subroutine in your code.

To draw the first diagram, it doesn't need transformation and is given directly to the drawing subroutine:

Red: 0.6c for 8 ticks then -0.6c for 8 ticks.
Blue: 0c for 20 tick

I suppose to draw your second diagram you call your transformation sub-routine/function passing the above inputs, whose output will be as below:

Red line velocity -> Zero velocity for first part of the journey (8 ticks) and (-1.2/1.36 c) for the second part of the journey (8 ticks)
Blue line velocity -> (- 0.6 c) - 20 ticks

and I suppose this output you the feed it to the same drawing subroutine used above to draw the second diagram.

Aside from the impracticality of using such large rods to measure distances and the impossibility of the observers seeing both ends of their rods at the same time, rods are no longer the standard for measuring distances. Instead we use the defined constant for the speed of light, the defined distance for how far light travels in a given time interval and a laser range finder or radar techniques.

I wouldn't say it's in the eyes of the beholder because it isn't something that can be seen.

I exaggerated the imagery to highlight the relativity of SR using a common phrase used in context of beauty and here we are talking abt distance. It also helps in my mind to recognize that how measuring systems measure apparently same length rods (all rods end points "apparently" meet) and come up with different lengths because they use measuring scales which are different. But this result does make me question are they of the same length in the first place or do their ends meet in the first place. Radar is a complex and more practical measuring scale which can be used to measure with high precision unlike measuring rods. But the concept is the same.

The problem with my imagery is how do we state that the ends points of two rods meet? To say I will ascertain that by seeing both rods is misguiding and that is the origin of the supposed paradox in my mind's eye as we truly cannot see that well and so we can only assert by measuring through using measuring sticks or radars like you mentioned. But infact if we really had the ability to see long distance and measure them precisely with an enhanced eye machinery, we will come to the conclusion that end points don't meet as how can end points of rods of varying lengths meet. In fact we cannot make an apriori assertion about whether the rods are same length or ends meet before we measure. Only measurement by precise means will give us the info to make assertions. In this case, we get the answer the rods are of different length and the distances are of different length and the right course of action is that we should go with it as there is nothing called absolute length anyway and all lengths are measured lengths, measured in the context of a particular reference frame.

It was helpful to see the light paths in the diagram and it really elucidated very well your point. Overall all the diagrams you had shared took me in the right direction and this last post I feel helped me refine my understanding further. Thank you.

 

[ghwellsjr]

When you mean transform I suppose at a high level you are using one transformation subroutine and one drawing subroutine in your code.

Yes.

To draw the first diagram, it doesn't need transformation and is given directly to the drawing subroutine:

Red: 0.6c for 8 ticks then -0.6c for 8 ticks.
Blue: 0c for 20 tick

Not exactly, even for the first diagram I pass the setup data through the transformation routine which doesn't do anything when the speed is zero.

I suppose to draw your second diagram you call your transformation sub-routine/function passing the above inputs, whose output will be as below:

Red line velocity -> Zero velocity for first part of the journey (8 ticks) and (-1.2/1.36 c) for the second part of the journey (8 ticks)
Blue line velocity -> (- 0.6 c) - 20 ticks

and I suppose this output you the feed it to the same drawing subroutine used above to draw the second diagram.

Yes, as long as you realize that the program does the same thing for all speeds.

I exaggerated the imagery to highlight the relativity of SR using a common phrase used in context of beauty and here we are talking abt distance. It also helps in my mind to recognize that how measuring systems measure apparently same length rods (all rods end points "apparently" meet) and come up with different lengths because they use measuring scales which are different. But this result does make me question are they of the same length in the first place or do their ends meet in the first place. Radar is a complex and more practical measuring scale which can be used to measure with high precision unlike measuring rods. But the concept is the same.

The problem with my imagery is how do we state that the ends points of two rods meet? To say I will ascertain that by seeing both rods is misguiding and that is the origin of the supposed paradox in my mind's eye as we truly cannot see that well and so we can only assert by measuring through using measuring sticks or radars like you mentioned. But infact if we really had the ability to see long distance and measure them precisely with an enhanced eye machinery, we will come to the conclusion that end points don't meet as how can end points of rods of varying lengths meet. In fact we cannot make an apriori assertion about whether the rods are same length or ends meet before we measure. Only measurement by precise means will give us the info to make assertions. In this case, we get the answer the rods are of different length and the distances are of different length and the right course of action is that we should go with it as there is nothing called absolute length anyway and all lengths are measured lengths, measured in the context of a particular reference frame.

It was helpful to see the light paths in the diagram and it really elucidated very well your point. Overall all the diagrams you had shared took me in the right direction and this last post I feel helped me refine my understanding further. Thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[lucaex baronium]

I started a thread previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/time-dilation-happens-on-moving-frame-but-which-one.814622/) around this concept but it got closed by one of the staff after helpfully pointing me to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_spacetime.html.

I read that link and it does nicely explain how Stella's elapsed "proper" time is lesser when analysed using the lens of Minkowski spacetime, from the frame of reference of Terrence (assuming Terrence is at rest). But suppose if we do the same calculation from the frame of reference of Stella (assuming Stella is at rest), wouldn't we get different worldlines? In fact the worldlines will switch between them. So from Stella's frame of reference, she will calculate that the elapsed "proper time" of Terrence is less than Stella and he would have aged less. So as I see it the paradox isn't avoided and infact reinforced by this elaborate calculation.

What am i missing?

I am basically a novice in the field of physics, but I had this odd realization not too long ago.
I'll begin simply...

Isn't there a way to work backwards, canceling out ALL influential velocities that we experience with the use of a formula, to test the accuracy of the time dilation theory?
Asumming this is possible, could we also find out if TIME really is just an illusion created by MOTION? Can you make sense of this?

 

[PAllen]

I am basically a novice in the field of physics, but I had this odd realization not too long ago.
I'll begin simply...

Isn't there a way to work backwards, canceling out ALL influential velocities that we experience with the use of a formula, to test the accuracy of the time dilation theory?
Asumming this is possible, could we also find out if TIME really is just an illusion created by MOTION? Can you make sense of this?

Velocities relative to what? You don't 'experience velocity', you have velocity relative to something, different for various somethings.

 

[lucaex baronium]

I think in this diagram, I feel there should be a correction made. The red line should go from (0,0) to (0,10) and not to (0,8) and the bend for the red line happens at (0,10) and then the line goes to (-15,25). At coordinate time 10 yrs, Terrence location will be -6 in x-axis which is correct as at the turn around point Terrence and Stella are separated by 6 light years. And also Terrence would have also spent proper time of 8 years (check graph) and so 2 years slower than Stella as we expected. So it is not 8/6.5 but 10/8 between Stella and Terrence at the turn around point as suggested by the above figure, an exact reverse of the world lines as seen from Terrance side (atleast for the first part of the journey) like I initially pointed out in my first post. But after that for the second part of the journey lines slope in such a manner we get back to original answer of 16 years for Stella and 20 years for Terrence at (-15,25) which tallies well with the answer we expected at the end of the journey. No confusion there if we don't change frames midway following Stella.

Considering this to be the case, then I can go back to my original thought experiment which I believe is now valid if the above reasoning is valid.

Here is a thought experiment.

Restating the problem which we have been discussing - Assume relative velocity between the two frames (Terrence & Stella) is 0.6 c. Stella travels from Earth to a space station which is 6 Light years away and then turns around and comes back. In the first part of the journey symmetry is not broken and so both Stella and Terrence's frames are equivalent. Both think the other person's time is slower. As per Stella she reaches the space station in 10 years, Terrence thinks she reaches the space station in 8 years.

Say Stella is a cancer patient and will die around 9 years if left untreated. Suppose the medicine for treatment is present in the space station at the end of the first part of the journey and suppose they get the medicine when they pass that station during the turn around and give it to Stella after that, Stella will be cured. Now the question if Stella is alive when she returns, then she reached the space station before 9 years which means the time was running slow in the spaceship which is what Terrence will argue if the journey is viewed from his reference, otherwise if she is dead when she returns then the time was running faster in spaceship which is what Stella herself will argue if she viewed the whole journey from her reference.

What is the truth? She can't be both dead and alive?

Answer is simple...
FAST and SLOW are synonymous terms in this instance, due to relativity. Stella (aboard the ship) appears to be slowed down to Terrance, but ONLY because the rate at which SHE is experiencing time has been sped up compared to him (think about it, high speed camera captures slowed down footage, right? Right.)
So,
With her temporal perception opperating at a higher rate than Terrances, the progression of her disease would cause her to reach death even quicker... I think... Hmm, maybe not so simple then, haha.
I think an important factor to scrutinize here would be how stellas body reacts to the velocity on the molecular level.
Intuitively, it makes sense to say it follows the same logic, but what about extremes?
What repercussions could come about from atomic vibrations slowing their rate too much?

I conclude with this, she would be dead... Not alive.

 

[lucaex baronium]

Velocities relative to what? You don't 'experience velocity', you have velocity relative to something, different for various somethings.

Velocity relative to ALL the velocities that are influencing our temporal perception, of course.
You may not be able to discern velocities, but you definitely experience them in one way or another.

Imagine if physicists used atomic clocks to measure precise variations in time passage (with our perception of time as the neutral) at different velocities?? One on a bullet train, one in a shuttle (a shuttle which has left the Earth -- no longer affected by its rotational and orbital velocity -- and has countered its directional velocity with thrusters (or what have you), and one that is simply sitting in a living room within a house on earth.
Now, after about 24hrs (im guessing) there should be noticable difference in the chrono synchronization of the clocks.

Using this data, the differences in time passage could be plotted on a graph and (with calculations and possibly more data) a precise numerical relation could be discovered between the passage of time over velocity.
From here a formula could be created.
Then, using this formula, it would be possible to CANCEL OUT each layer of universal velocity -- in the form of planetary rotation, solar orbit, galaxy distribution/MOTION, etc... all the way up to universal expansion -- by calculating these velocities into the formula and setting to zero.
So,
After all has been accounted for, what would the passage of time itself equate to?

That is to say, once MOTION is set to zero -- no movement in galaxy, solar system, planet -- what happens to the rate of time passage relative to our perspective?
Hmm?
Without motion aiding our experience, does time itself just appear to be standing still?

I hope all of what I just typed was even mildly ccomprehensive. If not, then please correct me, haha

 

[Ibix]

That is to say, once MOTION is set to zero -- no movement in galaxy, solar system, planet -- what happens to the rate of time passage relative to our perspective?
Hmm?
Without motion aiding our experience, does time itself just appear to be standing still?

I hope all of what I just typed was even mildly ccomprehensive. If not, then please correct me, haha

You appear to believe that there is some absolute definition of motion - that we can find some state that is "truly" at rest, and any other state is moving. This is not correct.

The whole point of relativity is that, as long as the accelerometer in your pocket measures zero, you are at rest. Whether you are in a spaceship traveling to another star (or waiting for the star to come to you, you could say) or in a space station waiting for the rocket to return, you can consider yourself to be at rest and everyone else to be moving. There is no experiment that will tell you otherwise.

In the case of the twin paradox, one of the twins (Stella) used her rockets to turn around and come back. The differences in experience for the twins means that there is an absolute sense in which one twin traveled out and back, and this leads to a difference in aging between the two. It does not mean that there is an absolute sense of motion.

The maths of this is well understood, and has been tested experimentally. There is no absolute "MOTION" to find.

 

[PAllen]

Velocity relative to ALL the velocities that are influencing our temporal perception, of course.
You may not be able to discern velocities, but you definitely experience them in one way or another.

No you don't, not at all. There is only velocity relative to other things.

Imagine if physicists used atomic clocks to measure precise variations in time passage (with our perception of time as the neutral) at different velocities?? One on a bullet train, one in a shuttle (a shuttle which has left the Earth -- no longer affected by its rotational and orbital velocity -- and has countered its directional velocity with thrusters (or what have you), and one that is simply sitting in a living room within a house on earth.
Now, after about 24hrs (im guessing) there should be noticable difference in the chrono synchronization of the clocks.

Using this data, the differences in time passage could be plotted on a graph and (with calculations and possibly more data) a precise numerical relation could be discovered between the passage of time over velocity.
From here a formula could be created.
Then, using this formula, it would be possible to CANCEL OUT each layer of universal velocity -- in the form of planetary rotation, solar orbit, galaxy distribution/MOTION, etc... all the way up to universal expansion -- by calculating these velocities into the formula and setting to zero.
So,
After all has been accounted for, what would the passage of time itself equate to?

That is to say, once MOTION is set to zero -- no movement in galaxy, solar system, planet -- what happens to the rate of time passage relative to our perspective?
Hmm?
Without motion aiding our experience, does time itself just appear to be standing still?

I hope all of what I just typed was even mildly ccomprehensive. If not, then please correct me, haha

The rest of this basically nonsense contradicted by experiment. There is no universal velocity. If two clocks move by each other rapidly, an observer associated with each would determine that the other is slow, and both are right.

 

[lucaex baronium]

You appear to believe that there is some absolute definition of motion - that we can find some state that is "truly" at rest, and any other state is moving. This is not correct.

The whole point of relativity is that, as long as the accelerometer in your pocket measures zero, you are at rest. Whether you are in a spaceship traveling to another star (or waiting for the star to come to you, you could say) or in a space station waiting for the rocket to return, you can consider yourself to be at rest and everyone else to be moving. There is no experiment that will tell you otherwise.

In the case of the twin paradox, one of the twins (Stella) used her rockets to turn around and come back. The differences in experience for the twins means that there is an absolute sense in which one twin traveled out and back, and this leads to a difference in aging between the two. It does not mean that there is an absolute sense of motion.

The maths of this is well understood, and has been tested experimentally. There is no absolute "MOTION" to find.

So what you're saying is without something to be compared side to side with said velocity, it might as well be zero because there is NOTHING to inform of otherwise. Acceleration and directional variance is all that matters?
Doesn't that seem to be lacking somewhat?
I mean, isn't there a reason things can't move faster than c?
If independent velocity didn't matter by itself, then why is light speed (non-varying) such an exception? Things going that fast aren't the same as zero, are they?

 

[lucaex baronium]

No you don't, not at all. There is only velocity relative to other things.

The rest of this basically nonsense contradicted by experiment. There is no universal velocity. If two clocks move by each other rapidly, an observer associated with each would determine that the other is slow, and both are right.

No universal velocity? Then what about relative to us?
We know how fast the Earth rotates and have measured how fast we orbit the sun (deciphered through earthly units of measure)
Are you saying that adding these two sums together is not rational because they do not affect each other in the least?

 

[PAllen]

No universal velocity? Then what about relative to us?
We know how fast the Earth rotates and have measured how fast we orbit the sun (deciphered through earthly units of measure)
Are you saying that adding these two sums together is not rational because they do not affect each other in the least?

How could you possibly believe that speed relative to 'us' is universal??!

Of course, speed relative to 'us' well defined (assuming you define 'us'). But how does it have more relevance than speed relative to the 3d moon of a planet orbiting some nearby star?