Twin Paradox: Travel at Fractional Speed & Instantly Return ##v##

In summary: Bob Dylan.In summary, a traveler visits a location (or doesn't!) that is ##x## light years away at fractional (EDITED) speed ##v## and instantly returns. After this her clock has progressed by ## \frac {2 x} {v} \sqrt {1 - v^2}## years.
  • #1
m4r35n357
654
148
A traveler visits a location (or doesn't!) ##x## light years away at fractional [EDITED] speed ##v## and instantly returns at the same speed. After this her clock has progressed by ## \frac {2 x} {v} \sqrt {1 - v^2}## years. [EDITED]

That really is all there is to be said.

If the poster mentions time dilation, the question is a B.
If the poster mentions acceleration, the question is a B.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
m4r35n357 said:
A traveler visits a location (or doesn't!) ##x## light years away at speed ##v## and instantly returns at the same speed. After this her clock has progressed by ## \frac {2 x} {v} \sqrt {1 - v^2}## light years.

That really is all there is to be said.

If the poster mentions time dilation, the question is a B.
If the poster mentions acceleration, the question is a B.


Thoughts?
Yeah, my off-the-cuff thought is that clocks don't "progress by light years". That's like saying that my clocked reading moved forward by x meters
 
  • Like
Likes Sorcerer and m4r35n357
  • #3
I understand your frustration, but it is in the nature of the forum structure that we deal with many novices who will inevitably ask similar questions. If you need a break from them, my advice is to take one and return to them if you feel the urge.

phinds said:
Yeah, my off-the-cuff thought is that clocks don't "progress by light years". That's like saying that my clocked reading moved forward by x meters
The units should not be there at all. They are part of the variables. See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/differentiation-with-units-related-rates-problem.957356/

That being said, light years is a perfectly fine unit of time in a system of units where ##c = 1##. It just happens to be the same unit as a year.
 
  • Like
Likes Sorcerer
  • #4
phinds said:
Yeah, my off-the-cuff thought is that clocks don't "progress by light years". That's like saying that my clocked reading moved forward by x meters
Ouch! I re-read that so many times.
 
  • Like
Likes Sorcerer
  • #5
With these notes:
x is measured in light-years
v is measured as a fraction of c (speed of light)
unit for the final result are year, not light years
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357
  • #6
Orodruin said:
That being said, light years is a perfectly fine unit o time in a system of units where ##c = 1##. It just happens to be the same unit as a year.
I really meant years of course. I think leaving the (correct) units in is helpful.
 
  • #7
m4r35n357 said:
Ouch! I re-read that so many times.
Yeah, I sympathize. It's amazing the way the human brain, having once overlooked a mistake becomes blind to it.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #8
Orodruin said:
I understand your frustration, but it is in the nature of the forum structure that we deal with many novices who will inevitably ask similar questions. If you need a break from them, my advice is to take one and return to them if you feel the urge.
Not a problem, I'm just passing some time trying to distill what I consider the essentials of the scenario, that can be used to explain not just the TP, but all the so-called "variations", in a consistent way and in the absolute minimum of words and equations. Thanks to the feedback here I have already managed to delete one more word!
 
  • #9
.Scott said:
unit for the final result are year, not light years
Again, in units where ##c = 1##, they are the same unit.
 
  • #10
m4r35n357 said:
If the poster mentions time dilation, the question is a B.
If the poster mentions acceleration, the question is a B.
I'm not sure what those statements mean.
It sounds as though you are responding to an exam question and that the answer should be graded down to a "B" if time dilation or acceleration is mentioned.
 
  • #11
.Scott said:
I'm not sure what those statements mean.
It sounds as though you are responding to an exam question and that the answer should be graded down to a "B" if time dilation or acceleration is mentioned.
Those are references to thread levels.
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357
  • #12
.Scott said:
I'm not sure what those statements mean.
It sounds as though you are responding to an exam question and that the answer should be graded down to a "B" if time dilation or acceleration is mentioned.
As @Orodruin pointed out, I was referring to the thread labels. I say this on the grounds that the two aspects indicate a need to understand the fundamentals properly before proceeding. I've been there myself and the only way out of that frustration is to go back and learn it properly!
 
  • Like
Likes Bandersnatch
  • #13
Off-topic, but I wonder if mathematical physicist John Baez has ever explained to his cousin, Joan, that "light-year" is a unit of distance, rather than time.

Well I'll be damned
Here comes your ghost again
But that's not unusual
It's just that the moon is full
And you happened to call
And here I sit
Hand on the telephone
Hearing a voice I'd known
A couple of light years ago
Heading straight for a fall

From "Diamonds and Dust"
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and m4r35n357
  • #14
Continuing off-topic sub-thread ...

stevendaryl said:
Off-topic, but I wonder if mathematical physicist John Baez has ever explained to his cousin, Joan, that "light-year" is a unit of distance, rather than time.

"A couple of light years ago"

Well, I think it works if "Hearing a voice I'd known A couple of light years ago" is replaced by "Hearing a voice I'd known So many many miles ago", so I do not have a problem with the original lyrics.

This could refer literally to a vast physical distance between two people, or, quite possibly, the author uses a physical distance as a metaphor for psychological/relationship distance between two people. Good lyrics of poetry and songs do this type of thing regularly.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
stevendaryl said:
Off-topic, but I wonder if mathematical physicist John Baez has ever explained to his cousin, Joan, that "light-year" is a unit of distance, rather than time.

Well I'll be damned
Here comes your ghost again
But that's not unusual
It's just that the moon is full
And you happened to call
And here I sit
Hand on the telephone
Hearing a voice I'd known
A couple of light years ago
Heading straight for a fall

From "Diamonds and Dust"

It's called poetic licence!
 
  • #16
m4r35n357 said:
A traveler visits a location (or doesn't!) ##x## light years away at fractional [EDITED] speed ##v## and instantly returns at the same speed. After this her clock has progressed by ## \frac {2 x} {v} \sqrt {1 - v^2}## years. [EDITED]

That really is all there is to be said.

If the poster mentions time dilation, the question is a B.
If the poster mentions acceleration, the question is a B.

Thoughts?
Oh...now I get it. for a second I thought I wasn't the only one approaching inebriation tonight. (note: I can eternally approach that state, but never quite arrive there, due to the fact that I have too much mass)
 

Related to Twin Paradox: Travel at Fractional Speed & Instantly Return ##v##

What is the Twin Paradox?

The Twin Paradox is a thought experiment that explores the concept of time dilation in the theory of relativity. It involves two twins, one of whom travels at a high speed and returns to Earth, while the other stays on Earth. This thought experiment raises questions about the nature of time and the effects of high-speed travel on aging.

How does the Twin Paradox work?

In the Twin Paradox, one twin (called the traveler) travels at a high speed while the other twin (called the stay-at-home) stays on Earth. When the traveler returns, they will have aged less than the stay-at-home, due to the effects of time dilation at high speeds. This is because the traveler experiences time passing slower than the stay-at-home due to their high velocity.

What is "travel at fractional speed" in the Twin Paradox?

In the Twin Paradox, "travel at fractional speed" refers to traveling at a speed that is a fraction of the speed of light. This is necessary in the thought experiment in order to see significant effects of time dilation. It is also used to illustrate the concept of time dilation in a simplified way, as traveling at the speed of light is not possible for massive objects.

Why is the Twin Paradox considered a paradox?

The Twin Paradox is considered a paradox because it seems to contradict the idea of time being constant for all observers. In the thought experiment, the traveler experiences time passing slower than the stay-at-home, which appears to go against the concept of time being the same for all observers. However, this paradox is resolved when considering the effects of relativity and time dilation at high speeds.

Is the Twin Paradox possible in real life?

While the Twin Paradox is a thought experiment, the effects of time dilation at high speeds have been proven through experiments with atomic clocks on planes and satellites. However, in order to see significant effects, the speed of the traveling object must be a significant fraction of the speed of light. This makes the Twin Paradox unlikely to occur in real life scenarios for humans, but it remains a useful thought experiment for exploring the concepts of relativity and time dilation.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
672
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
958
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
737
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
Back
Top