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.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
Back
Top