Take the following gedankenexperiment in which two astronauts meet each other again and again in a p

Amappyaccon22j7e 2022-05-10 Answered

Take the following gedankenexperiment in which two astronauts meet each other again and again in a perfectly symmetrical setting - a hyperspherical (3-manifold) universe in which the 3 dimensions are curved into the 4. dimension so that they can travel without acceleration in straight opposite directions and yet meet each other time after time.
On the one hand this situation is perfectly symmetrical - even in terms of homotopy and winding number. On the other hand the Lorentz invariance should break down according to GRT, so that one frame is preferred - but which one?
So the question is: Who will be older? And why?
And even if there is one prefered inertial frame - the frame of the other astronaut should be identical with respect to all relevant parameters so that both get older at the same rate. Which again seems to be a violation of SRT in which the other twin seems to be getting older faster/slower...
How should one find out what the preferred frame is when everything is symmetrical - even in terms of GRT

Ask Expert 1 See Answers

You can still ask an expert for help

Answers (1)

Oswaldo Rosales

Answered 2022-05-11 Author has 16 answers

Abstract: Twins travelling at constant relative velocity will each see the other's time dilate leading to the apparent paradox that each twin believes the other ages more slowly. In a finite space, the twins can both be on inertial, periodic orbits so that they have the opportunity to compare their ages when their paths cross. As we show, they will agree on their respective ages and avoid the paradox. The resolution relies on the selection of a preferred frame singled out by the topology of the space.

This is helpful

This is helpful 0

Relevant Questions

asked 2022-05-14

The relativistic energy-momentum equation is:

E^{2} = (p c)^{2} + (m c^{2})^{2} .

p c = E v / c

E = m c^{2} / (1 - v^{2} / c^{2})^{1 / 2} .

Now, accelerating a proton to near the speed of light:

\begin{matrix} 0.990000000000000 & c => & 0.0000000011 & J = & 0.01 & T e V \\ 0.999000000000000 & c => & 0.0000000034 & J = & 0.02 & T e V \\ 0.999900000000000 & c => & 0.0000000106 & J = & 0.07 & T e V \\ 0.999990000000000 & c => & 0.0000000336 & J = & 0.21 & T e V \\ 0.999999000000000 & c => & 0.0000001063 & J = & 0.66 & T e V \\ 0.999999900000000 & c => & 0.0000003361 & J = & 2.10 & T e V \\ 0.999999990000000 & c => & 0.0000010630 & J = & 6.64 & T e V \\ 0.999999999000000 & c => & 0.0000033614 & J = & 20.98 & T e V \\ 0.999999999900000 & c => & 0.0000106298 & J = & 66.35 & T e V \\ 0.999999999990000 & c => & 0.0000336143 & J = & 209.83 & T e V \\ 0.999999999999000 & c => & 0.0001062989 & J = & 663.54 & T e V \\ 0.999999999999900 & c => & 0.0003360908 & J = & 2, 097.94 & T e V \\ 0.999999999999990 & c => & 0.0010634026 & J = & 6, 637.97 & T e V \\ 0.999999999999999 & c => & 0.0033627744 & J = & 20, 991.10 & T e V \end{matrix}

If the LHC is accelerating protons to

7 T e V

it means they're traveling with a speed of

0.99999999 c

.
Is everything above correct?

See answers (1)

asked 2022-04-06

If you have 2 flashlights, one facing North and one facing South, how fast are the photons (or lightbeams) from both flashlights moving away from one another?
Just adding speeds would yield 2C, but that's not possible as far as I know.
The reference frame here would be the place where the flashlights are and/or .The beams relative to one another.

See answers (2)

asked 2022-05-18

It is well known that quantum mechanics and (general) relativity do not fit well. I am wondering whether it is possible to make a list of contradictions or problems between them?
E.g. relativity theory uses a space-time continuum, while quantum theory uses discrete states.

See answers (1)

asked 2022-05-19

Suppose we have a sphere of radius

r

and mass m and a negatively charged test particle at distance d from its center,

d ≫ r

. If the sphere is electrically neutral, the particle will fall toward the sphere because of gravity. As we deposit electrons on the surface of the sphere, the Coulomb force will overcome gravity and the test particle will start to accelerate away. Now suppose we keep adding even more electrons to the sphere. If we have n electrons, the distribution of their pairwise distances has a mean proportional to

r

, and there are

n (n - 1) / 2

such pairs, so the binding energy is about

n^{2} / r

. If this term is included in the total mass-energy of the sphere, the gravitational force on the test particle would seem to be increasing quadratically with

n

, and therefore eventually overcomes the linearly-increasing Coulomb force. The particle slows down, turns around, and starts falling again. This seems absurd; what is wrong with this analysis?

See answers (2)

asked 2022-05-18

I am asked to show that the matrix

S = 1 - \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν}

represents the infinitesimal Lorentz transformation

Λ^{μ}_{ν} = δ^{μ}_{ν} + ε^{μ}_{ν},

in the sense that

S^{- 1} γ^{μ} S = Λ^{μ}_{ν} γ^{ν} .

I have already proven that

S^{- 1} = γ^{0} S^{†} γ^{0}

, so I can begin with the left-hand side of this third equation:

\begin{aligned} S^{- 1} γ^{μ} S & = γ^{0} S^{†} γ^{0} γ^{μ} S \\ = γ^{0} (1 + \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν}) γ^{0} γ^{μ} (1 - \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν}) \\ = γ^{0} γ^{0} γ^{μ} - γ^{0} γ^{0} γ^{μ} \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν} + γ^{0} \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν} γ^{0} γ^{μ} - γ^{0} \frac{i}{4} σ_{ρ τ} ε^{ρ τ} γ^{0} γ^{μ} \frac{i}{4} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν} \\ = γ^{μ} + \frac{1}{16} γ^{0} σ_{ρ τ} ε^{ρ τ} γ^{0} γ^{μ} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν} \\ = γ^{μ} + \frac{1}{16} (σ_{ρ τ} ε^{ρ τ} σ_{μ ν} ε^{μ ν}) γ^{μ} . \end{aligned}

Remember, we want this to be equal to

Λ^{μ}_{ν} γ^{ν} = (δ^{μ}_{ν} + ε^{μ}_{ν}) γ^{ν} = γ^{μ} + ε^{μ}_{ν} γ^{ν} .

The first term is there already, but I have no idea how that second term is going to work out to

ε^{μ}_{ν} γ^{ν}

. Can anyone give me a hint, or tell me what I’ve done wrong?

See answers (1)

asked 2022-05-19

An electron is shot towards a target that is negatively charged. While the electron is traveling, the target makes an abrupt move towards the electron. While the information that the target moved is traveling from the target to the electron, the electron behaves like an electron that is moving towards a target that is in the original position.
How can energy be conserved when an electron that is moving towards a nearby charge behaves like it was moving towards a far away charge? Seems we end up with electron being at 2 meters distance from the target, while the electron had enough energy to travel to at most 4 meters distance from the target.
It also seems to me that "moving the target requires energy" is not a solution to this problem.

See answers (1)

asked 2022-04-07

Why the log? Is it there to make the growth of the function slower?
As this is a common experimental observable, it doesn't seem reasonable to take the range from

[0, \infty)

(- \infty, \infty)

(For a particle emitted along the beam axis after collision

θ = 0

wouldn't be better to have a number that says how close it is to zero rather than one that says how large a number it is. I hope that makes the question clear.)

See answers (1)

Relativity