Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)

  • B
  • Thread starter AtoMick-u235
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of time dilation and the incorrect calculations presented by Brian in a YouTube video. The correct calculation for the total round trip travel time is 288.7 years, and the relative speed between Jim and Earth remains the same in both frames. It is important to not fully trust popular science presentations as they may contain incorrect information.
  • #1
AtoMick-u235
Gold Member
12
1
i made a comment on youtube =

It's only 4 minutes long, see the last minute

If Jim went away at 99.94 c, for 10 years, and we see him take 29 years, 1) what doe's that mean, it means that Jim's apparent speed from Earths veiw has to be slower than 99.94 c, because it took longer, it equals just 34.48 c, someone help me out here !!, , All processes that change with time, change at a slower rate when observed in motion, even speed, , you have to insert the new time in, S = D \ T, , ,
99.94% C = 28.87 x time dilation, so i don't know where Brian got 29 years from 10, , , it should be 288.7 years, , , 2 ) or maybe for Jim, he could be away for just 10 \ 28.87 = 0.37 years, so thats about 4 months, and from earths veiw we see him take 10 years,, , , all i can think is that brian got it wrong, it should be 1 year instead of 10, , ,

I think option 2 is correct, , ,
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
AtoMick-u235 said:
If Jim went away at 99.94 c, for 10 years, and we see him take 29 years
Where does 29 years come from?

AtoMick-u235 said:
99.94% C = 28.87 x time dilation
Where does 28.87 come from? What does this mean?
 
  • #3
AtoMick-u235 said:
All processes that change with time, change at a slower rate when observed in motion, even speed, , you have to insert the new time in, S = D \ T, , ,
This is nonsense.
 
  • #4
PeterDonis said:
Where does 29 years come from?Where does 28.87 come from? What does this mean?
Brian rounded 28.87 to 29 years, , ,i just put in the correct value
 
  • #5
PeterDonis said:
This is nonsense.
Yes, , like i said Brian has it wrong
 
  • #6
AtoMick-u235 said:
Yes, , like i said Brian has it wrong
What you posted in post #3 that I said was nonsense, is not something Brian claimed in the video, as far as I can tell. It's something you claimed in your OP. And it's wrong. See further comments below.

AtoMick-u235 said:
Brian rounded 28.87 to 29 years
Ok. You are right that that's not correct given the other parameters he gives. See below.

AtoMick-u235 said:
i just put in the correct value
If you mean the figure of 288.7 years that you gave in your OP, yes, that is correct for the total round trip travel time as seen from Earth, given that the total travel time by Jim's clock is 10 years and that his speed relative to Earth is 0.9994c (which means a gamma factor of 28.87).

However, when you say...
AtoMick-u235 said:
Jim's apparent speed from Earths veiw has to be slower than 99.94 c
...you are wrong. The difference in travel times as seen by Earth clocks vs. Jim's clock does not mean the speeds are different; the relative speed is the same in both frames. The difference is the distance that is traveled.

In Jim's frame, the Earth moves away from him for 5 years (half of the total 10 year trip time), meaning that at its furthest Earth is just short of 5 light years away from Jim in Jim's frame.

But in the Earth frame, Jim moves away for 14.435 [Edit-144.35] years, so at his furthest, Jim is just short of 14.435 [Edit-144.35] light years away from Earth in the Earth frame.
 
  • #7
PeterDonis said:
What you posted in post #3 that I said was nonsense, is not something Brian claimed in the video, as far as I can tell. It's something you claimed in your OP. And it's wrong. See further comments below.Ok.If you mean the figure of 288.7 years that you gave in your OP, yes, that is correct for the total round trip travel time as seen from Earth, given that the total travel time by Jim's clock is 10 years and that his speed relative to Earth is 0.9994c (which means a gamma factor of 28.87).

However, when you say...

...you are wrong. The difference in travel times as seen by Earth clocks vs. Jim's clock does not mean the speeds are different; the relative speed is the same in both frames. The difference is the distance that is traveled.

In Jim's frame, the Earth moves away from him for 5 years (half of the total 10 year trip time), meaning that at its furthest Earth is just short of 5 light years away from Jim in Jim's frame.

But in the Earth frame, Jim moves away for 14.435 years, so at his furthest, Jim is just short of 14.435 light years away from Earth in the Earth frame.
In option 1) i'm just stating brians reasoning, and that it is wrong , , and option 2) is correct
 
  • #8
@AtoMick-u235 the moral of this story is never ever trust pop-sci presentations. They get a lot of stuff right a lot of time time but they get enough wrong that they are not to be trusted. They are entertainment, not science.
 
  • Like
Likes PhDeezNutz, Vanadium 50, AtoMick-u235 and 1 other person
  • #9
AtoMick-u235 said:
In option 1) i'm just stating brians reasoning
No, you're not. None of this...

AtoMick-u235 said:
1) what doe's that mean, it means that Jim's apparent speed from Earths veiw has to be slower than 99.94 c, because it took longer, it equals just 34.48 c, someone help me out here !!, , All processes that change with time, change at a slower rate when observed in motion, even speed, , you have to insert the new time in, S = D \ T, , ,
...is said by Brian in the video. It's stuff you made up yourself.

The only incorrect statement Brian makes in the video is the 29 years; given the other parameters, it should be 288.7 years. I think that's more likely than Brian making a mistake and meaning to say 1 year instead of 10 (which would make 29 years correct), because he says Jim flies away for 5 years and then back for 5 years by his own clock, so he would have had to make several mistakes while he was describing the scenario, not just one. Whereas if he just mistakenly said 29 years instead of 288.7 years, that's just one mistake.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
in the Earth frame, Jim moves away for 14.435 years, so at his furthest, Jim is just short of 14.435 light years away from Earth in the Earth frame.
Now it's me forgetting to put in an extra factor of 10. It should be that Jim moves away for 144.35 years, so at his furthest he is just short of 144.35 light years from Earth in the Earth frame.
 
  • #11
After moderator review, this thread is closed.
 

FAQ: Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)

What is the main premise of "Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)"?

The main premise of "Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)" is to explore the scientific concepts and theories presented in the popular television series Doctor Who. The book examines the plausibility of various scientific ideas depicted in the show, comparing them with real-world science and addressing the debates between the authors, Brian and Jim, on the accuracy of these concepts.

Who are the authors of the book?

The authors of "Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)" are Brian Cox, a renowned physicist and science communicator, and Jim Al-Khalili, a theoretical physicist and popular science author. Both authors bring their expertise in science to analyze the fictional elements of Doctor Who and discuss their scientific validity.

Does the book provide a definitive answer to whether the science in Doctor Who is accurate?

No, the book does not provide a definitive answer regarding the accuracy of the science in Doctor Who. Instead, it presents a range of scientific theories and concepts, encouraging readers to think critically about the intersection of science and science fiction. The authors often have differing opinions, which adds to the engaging debate throughout the text.

Are there any specific scientific topics covered in the book?

Yes, the book covers various scientific topics, including time travel, black holes, the nature of space and time, and the potential for extraterrestrial life. Each topic is examined through the lens of both real-world science and the fictional portrayals in Doctor Who, allowing readers to see how these concepts are intertwined.

Is "Is Brian or Jim Wrong? (the science of Dr. Who)" suitable for non-scientists?

Yes, the book is suitable for non-scientists as it is written in an accessible and engaging manner. The authors aim to make complex scientific concepts understandable to a general audience, using humor and relatable examples. Fans of Doctor Who as well as those with a casual interest in science will find the discussions both informative and entertaining.

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
98
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Back
Top