0 Members and 22 Guests are viewing this topic.
Precisely my point. He can't tell B's time simply by looking at his own clock: he has to make a lot of assumptions. That's relativity.
Quote from: Halc on 02/05/2024 17:05:36You missed the fact that the Earth clock is inertial between the two events of the 'jump' and the traveling clock is not, so its worldline is half the temporal length that it would have had had it been inertial between its two events.Where does the number "half" come from?
You missed the fact that the Earth clock is inertial between the two events of the 'jump' and the traveling clock is not, so its worldline is half the temporal length that it would have had had it been inertial between its two events.
He can verify his assumptions by asking an external inertial observer,
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/05/2024 10:35:41He can verify his assumptions by asking an external inertial observer,Which is not "simply by looking at his own clock". Try reading the question before questioning the answer.
If A cannot tell the time on B's clock by looking at his own, he has no reason to assume that they are synchronised. Thus there is no paradox. To repeat a mantra for the umpteenth time: You can derive a nonrelativistic result from a relativistic model by putting v << c. You can't derive a relativistic result from a nonrelativistic model.
There is no paradox, so no resolution is required. The time difference has been measured and consists with the calculated value.
I recommend the Wikipedia entry for the Hafele-Keating experiment, which explains the corrections required for an earth-based observer.
The Hafele?Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In 1971,[1] Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four caesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
There is no paradox. Relativity is the best description we have of how things work, and when v << c, relativistic mechanics simplifies to include such notions as simultaneity and synchronism, which are adequate for many everyday purposes but cannot be considered complete.
Do you think solution of twin paradox requires general relativity?Is special relativity inadequate for this situation?
Time dilation is the difference in elapsed time as measured by two clocks, either because of a relative velocity between them (special relativity), or a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativity).
Where's the paradox?
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, as a consequence of an incorrect[1][2] and naive[3][4] application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey.[5] Another way of looking at it is to realize the travelling twin is undergoing acceleration, which makes them a non-inertial observer. In both views there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins. Therefore, the twin paradox is not actually a paradox in the sense of a logical contradiction. There is still debate as to the resolution of the twin paradox.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2024 07:31:39Quote from: Halc on 02/05/2024 17:05:36You missed the fact that the Earth clock is inertial between the two events of the 'jump' and the traveling clock is not, so its worldline is half the temporal length that it would have had had it been inertial between its two events.Where does the number "half" come from? In the explanation by Henry's Minutephysics and Mahesh' Floatinghead Physics, acceleration of the observed clocks don't cause any time jump. Time jumps only occur when the observer is looking at far away clock while changing velocity.We know we are having a knowledge gap when we have a quantitative answer without knowing where it comes from.
Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity is confusing. It?s even harder to grasp when all the explanations disagree about how to interpret it. And to top it all off, the explanations all use a PARADOX.I decided I needed to step in and give one more explanation to destroy the paradox once and for all. Did I succeed? Let me know in the comments what I should clarify in my next video.Chapters:00:00 - Intro00:48 - The Story03:03 - The Paradox04:56 - The Problem07:59 - Breaking the Symmetry10:15 - Constructed Inertial Frames12:27 - Video Evidence15:21 - There is No Paradox17:33 - Connecting the Dots