Thread: Slower aging with speed, trick of the light?

1. Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible

The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?

Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?

P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?

2.

3. If I recall correctly I think the slowdown of time can be expressed with: by Einstein's theory of relativity.
This means that time dilation occurs at high speeds. However as to exactly why this phenomena exists in our Universe I'm not entirely sure about.

You might find this site interesting: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...win_intro.html

4. Originally Posted by Booms
Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible

The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?

Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?

P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?
FTL and time travel are impossible. Get used to it. It is true.

The twin paradox is not a paradox. The traveling twin really does age less. This has been shown both experimentally and theoretically. The effect is quite real.

It was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in the decay of elementary particles daily in collider experiments. One of the earliest pieces of evidence is the penetration of muons formed in the upper atmospher by collisions with cosmic rays. The muons penetrate much deeper into the atmospheree than would be expected from their known short lifetimes. The explanatin in the reference frame of the earth is time dilation, and in the reference frame of the muon length contraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...on.html#relcon

5. There's also gravitational time dilation. Time passes more slowly in a strong gravitational field.

6. Originally Posted by Geo
There's also gravitational time dilation. Time passes more slowly in a strong gravitational field.
Basically true, but this takes some work to make precise. This is an effect of general relativity. General relativity does not use reference frames in quite the way that they are used in special relativity. Specifically general relativity models the universe as a spacetime manifold, a Lorentzian 4-manifold. There time and space are both local concepts and one cannot compare two clocks at different locations (yeah I know you can look across the room at a clock, but I am trying to explain the nature of the general theory).

So, what happens is that if you consider two clocks that start at the same point in spacetime (same point in space and same point in time) and then one moves to a region of higher gravitational potential and then returns to the be rejoined with the other clock at the same spatial location then the clock that was in the higher gravitational field will show less elapsed time than the first clock. Now in part this will also be due to the trip that was taken, but the effect will be greater than just that and that is in fact due to the gravitational field.

This was demonstrated in the Pound-Rebka experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E...bka_experiment

7. IIRC, the effect is also more related to gravitational potential than the field itself, while clocks at higher altitudes run faster.

8. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Originally Posted by Booms
Before you answer, please understand I'm not a scientist, I'm a 6th form student with an interest in physics (not even doing a Physics AS though) so please don't hassle me pointing out inaccuracies, incorrect statements, or wrong terms.
I don't mind being corrected, I mind someone picking up that I mentioned FTL travel as an EXAMPLE and decides to be a snob and tell me it's impossible

The Twins paradox, as I understand, is the idea that one twin goes very fast away, and then back to the other twin, and the stationary twin is older, the moving twin has aged 'slower' than the stationary one

I saw the Diagrams on http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...in_paradox.htm

So has the moving twin actually aged slower? or is it a trick of the light, he's moved further away and thus the light has reached Stationary slower (Kinda, if you throw a ball while moving backwards, it takes longer/ travels further to the same destination)... Although wouldn't this be negated by the Twins return trip?

Something I just thought of, I remember reading about different reference frames, when the twin returns, does it return to it's original Frame with the stationary twin? Or when it leaves, does it's speed move it into a different reference frame (presumably further back in time or similar to explain the less age) and remain in that frame, even when returned and stationary with the twin who remained behind?

P.S, does anyone actually understand the Twins Paradox? I'm sure many of you know it, I do, I know the idea behind it, but does anyone understand how it happens? grasping the concept of whats happening?
FTL and time travel are impossible. Get used to it. It is true.

The twin paradox is not a paradox. The traveling twin really does age less. This has been shown both experimentally and theoretically. The effect is quite real.

It was shown in the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in the decay of elementary particles daily in collider experiments. One of the earliest pieces of evidence is the penetration of muons formed in the upper atmospher by collisions with cosmic rays. The muons penetrate much deeper into the atmospheree than would be expected from their known short lifetimes. The explanatin in the reference frame of the earth is time dilation, and in the reference frame of the muon length contraction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ativ/muon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...on.html#relcon

What the HELL!
I hope you are over seventy five, otherwise you are the rudest hack I've ever met

I...I mean you actually QUOTED the section of my post that said "don't nitpick over inacuracies" and used it to bloody nitpick! I can decide what's worse, that you've done that, or that what you've nitpicked over is the GODDAMN EXAMPLE, you've actually picked up on the example I gave to show what I hate people doing

That out of the way
Thanks for all the relevant help and responses, it helped. Unsuprisingly however, It was Stephen Hawking who made me understand completely. I didn't realise the effect wasn't increased aging in TB, or TA moving forwards in time. Rather the effect is the slowing of time around TA as she nears the speed of light

Now there is but one question, How the heck does time do that?

9. Originally Posted by Booms

What the HELL!
I hope you are over seventy five, otherwise you are the rudest hack I've ever met

I...I mean you actually QUOTED the section of my post that said "don't nitpick over inacuracies" and used it to bloody nitpick! I can decide what's worse, that you've done that, or that what you've nitpicked over is the GODDAMN EXAMPLE, you've actually picked up on the example I gave to show what I hate people doing
If you start out by postiing nonsense then don't be surprised if your begging for mercy falls on deaf ears.

There were no nitpicks. Just statements of fact and identification of egregious inaccuracies.

If you don't like it then engage the gear on your brain before letting out the clutch on your mouth.

Originally Posted by Booms

That out of the way
Thanks for all the relevant help and responses, it helped. Unsuprisingly however, It was Stephen Hawking who made me understand completely. I didn't realise the effect wasn't increased aging in TB, or TA moving forwards in time. Rather the effect is the slowing of time around TA as she nears the speed of light

Now there is but one question, How the heck does time do that?
Time doesn't do that as some sort of conscious act. It is simply the way that the universe works. Read up on special relativity. There are several good books. Rindler's Essential Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological is one of them.

10. Originally Posted by DrRocket

It is, because it seems to defy logic.

11. Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Originally Posted by DrRocket

It is, because it seems to defy logic.
No.

It only seems to defy an incorrect application of a perfectly consistent theory.

There is not and never was a paradox.

One resolution is very simple. Special relativity is formulated so as to apply in an inertial reference frame and only in an inertial reference frame. In the twin paradox the frame of the non-traveling twin is inertial while the frame of the traveling twin is not. Therefore the equations of special reltivity apply only in the frame of the non-traveling twin. No paradox.

12. Originally Posted by Twit of wit
Originally Posted by DrRocket

It is, because it seems to defy logic.
What it really defies is intuition, which as has been shown time and again is a terrible substitute for logic. Neither relativity (in either form) nor any of quantum mechanics are intuitive, but both work well beyond our ability to test whether or not things work. Therefore, despite grating against many people's intuition, we use them, and all the people who thing they should be thrown out just because they can't wrap their heads around them are simply wrong, if even that.

13. Originally Posted by DrRocket
Janus is absolutely correct. As usual
I figured I'd truncate that statement due to its truth value. Janus is a superb teacher of complex things, and I offer him my personal gratitude for helping me to better understand so many things. [/Recognition_and_thanks]

14. Several posts have been split off into a new thread in New Hypotheses and Ideas under the title of "Differential aging", as they pertained to one poster's personal theory.

15. DrRocket, MagiMaster: I was not trying to say it disproves the theory, just that it seems to defy logic.

16. Originally Posted by Twit of wit
DrRocket, MagiMaster: I was not trying to say it disproves the theory, just that it seems to defy logic.
The point is that it does not defy logic.

What it defies is illogic.

17. It defies ill-logic.

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement