I Lorentz Contraction & Twin Paradox

Mickey1
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Does Lorentz contraction point to the twin paradox
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?

Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mickey1 said:
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?
I don't know.
Mickey1 said:
Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.

In its simplest form, the twin paradox is the analogy in Minkowski geometry of the triangle inequality in Euclidean geometry. More generally, the proper time that elapses along the worldline of an object is equivalent to the invariant spacetime distance along the worldline.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale, malawi_glenn, topsquark and 1 other person
Mickey1 said:
The twin paradox is connected to the special relativity but I wonder simply if one might construct the paradox (or something very similar) based on the Lorentz’ (and FitzGerald) work alone?
Well, length contraction alone won't get you there (and I don't think a theory with length contraction alone would really be self-consistent). Lorentz actually derived the Lorentz transforms, which are the mathematical core of relativity, before Einstein. As far as I know, though, he believed them to be just a mathematical fix for Maxwell's equations, so something that was only relevant to electromagnetic waves and fields and the like, until shown otherwise by Einstein.

So Lorentz had the maths to set up the twin paradox, but not the conceptual framework in which to think of it. So in answer to your question I'd say "maybe, it kinda depends what you think of as Lorentz's work".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and PeroK
Mickey1 said:
Several ingredients in the paradox, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, are often mentioned with reference only to Lorentz without any mention of relativity.

If you refer to Lorentz contraction, you are referring to something that's a part of relativity. Likewise for time dilation.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top